I just finished a really good book, Athanasius by Peter Leithart. There are a few things I am intending on addressing from the book, on various fronts that he addresses in the process of getting at 
Athanasius’ theology (like a critique of Michael Horton’s Federal Theology … which is lovely). But this piece, this post comes from a hunting-gathering expedition I took into the Forest-land of end notes; which normally I tremble to enter, given its distance from the land of the living in the body of the text itself—but I was brave this time. As a result of my adventurous move, I came across a little critique that Leithart drops on T. F. Torrance’s reading of Athanasius. It’s really not a surprising critique, but it brings up an interesting discussion–methinks–and so I want to address it here.
In the following quote, Peter J. Leithart provides a mini-critique of the Barthian way that Torrance reads Athanasius relative to a theory of revelation (the context of the note is a discussion that Leithart is developing on the tripartite method of biblical interpretation that Athanasius follows—he is noticing how Torrance, according to him, misreads Athanasius). Note Leithart,
[…] and Torrance, “Hermeneutics of Saint Athanasius (Part 1),” Ekklesiastikos Pharos (1970-1971), in four installments. For all its virtues, Torrance’s series imposes a Barthian framework on Athanasius. Torrance detaches the res [reality] of revelation from the word of Scripture in ways that I think Athanasius would have rejected, and he attempts to explain his use of biblical paradigms while holding to Barthian scruples about natural revelation, scruples that Athanasius was far from sharing. [brackets mine] -Peter J. Leithart, Athanasius, 182 fn. 19.
This might mean nothing to you, but to me it is, obviously, interesting. Leithart is simply seeking to provide a critical reading of Athanasius, and so I think his reading is quite fair; further, that his little critique of Torrance, is most likely accurate (Torrance is known for his, as some have noted before, his hagiographic readings of folk … I prefer to think of it as constructive). But this does bring up something, and I wonder how this impacts you. What Leithart is noting when he speaks of Torrance and how he ‘detaches the res of revelation from the word of Scripture’ is in reference to Torrance’s Barthian theory of revelation; wherein there is a depth dimension to scripture, such that the meaning of scripture can’t simply be read off of the syntactical, grammatical structure of the text of scripture, but that scripture itself points beyond itself to its, reality, or Christ. Note what John Webster has written in his abstract to an essay he has authored for the most recent volume of the Scottish Journal of Theology entitled, simply: T. F. Torrance On Scripture; he writes,
Although it was never completed and has had only slight impact, T. F. Torrance’s work on the nature and interpretation of scripture is a primary element in his theology, though largely unstudied. For Torrance, a theology of scripture and its interpretation derive from a theology of revelation; revelation takes creaturely form in the incarnate Word, out of which is generated the apostolic community and its witness, which in turn generates scripture, the human word which ministers the divine Word. Scripture is the divine Word accommodated to human form, and so a sacrament or sign which refers to revelation; its social location is the life of the apostolic community. Interpretation of scripture is properly βdepth-interpretationβ, following the semantics of scripture by which reference to divine reality is made, rather than terminating on scripture’s syntactical surface. Fitting interpretative practice follows the text’s reference, penetrates to the thing signified, indwells its subject matters and listens to the divine Word. The interpreter is summoned to mortification of prejudice and constantly renewed attentiveness…. (see full biblio and abstract here)
So what do you think? 1) What do you think about a theory of revelation? Would you follow what Leithart attributes to Athanasius?; which is really just the traditional understanding of revelation. I.e. that scripture itself is God’s special revelation to humanity. Or, would you prefer Torrance’s and Barth’s approach which hold, that properly ordered, God’s Self-revelation is not collapsed into paper or a Pope; but, instead, it is God’s personal Triune self-revelation of himself through himself, through his eternal Word, his Son? This, as Webster underscores, will have impact upon, at least, the emphases of your biblical interpretation (like your methodology, and the ethics of reading the text etc.).
I would like to know what theory of revelation you follow, and why? Only if you want to let me know though …
Do I understand correctly, then, that Torrance believes that Christ being The Word of God, The Revelation of God, that Scripture is not the Word of God, the Revelation of God in the sense normally ascribed it, or is only to the extent it points to, leads us to The Word of God?
And is Leithart Arguing then, that the Word of God on paper is more than ‘just’ a compass pointing to The Word (obviously it is that)? But additionally, a highly specific historical and instructional and spiritual document inspired by God to reveal His activity and will to His people? If I am interpretting the arguments corrrectly, then I’m with Peter.
Does Torrance play the text off of the Christ, i.e. reshape the text based on his understanding of Christ? If not, then what is the significance of Torrance’s thought, other than giving due honor and priority to Jesus in relation to the text of Scripture. I don’t know how to get to Christ other than through Scripture and this is what Paul emphasized in the Pastorals when he was handing over the ministry to Timothy and Titus. Elaborate please.
@Duane,
I’d say you’re tracking pretty well; except that TFT does think scripture is the Word of God, but that it’s not ulitmately revelation. Instead he sees scripture bearing witness to God’s Self-revelation, which is personal in His Son. So TFT sees scripture as purely instrumental.
And yes, Leithart is also highlighting the traditional view; that scripture is our epistemological source for knowing God.
@Paul,
No, TFT’s view is more radical than your initial question suggests. He the text reshaped, he sees the text’s always already reality to bear witness to God’s Revelation, who is personal, and is of course Jesus. So scripture, for TFT, is not an epistemological source bed for us, but it is governed by the “rule of faith” or Jesus himself in intense ways. So all of scripture is deeply held together, in principle, by its capacity to bear witness to Jesus in every nook and cranny. Like for Barth, for TFT, scripture becomes God’s Word as we encounter him through it sacramentally. I think TFT would emphasize the sacramental reality of scripture more than Barth’s becoming of scripture. Does that help?
@Bobby,
Sorry, I am a little fuzzy on your response. Still sounds like TFT arrives at a private “rule of faith” based on his experience or understanding of the Christ pointed to by Scripture. This “rule of faith” can be different than the specific text that led him there, which then allows him to reshape the text. Still sounds like he allows for a break between the apostolic portrayal of Christ and his own portrayal of Christ.
Thanks for replying…
….which COULD lead to circular reasoning, rather spiraling reasoning: “Scripture led me to Christ, Christ is shaped thus, so scripture means this in order to point to Christ. Scripture does not mean that, because that is not what Christ is shaped like.” Of course, we all do this to an extent, depending on our presumptions, and our willingness to move on certain points, but that is just the way things work, perhaps to keep us from being “blown about by every wind and doctrine”, but it is not codified in the way we study Scripture, as Torrance is alledged to be codifying it.
If Scripture is not a completely trustworthy, objective source given by God, not just in it’s compass to Christ, but in everything with which it has to do, then there is no yardstick to measure it’s reliability on any level, including pointing us to the true Christ. We could be following a false christ.
Do I believe that? No. Because I believe The Bible is a completely trustworthy source. If I didn’t, I should look into the book of Mormom or some such other, or just forkget apboudit.
@Paul,
You need to spend some substantial time engaging TF Torrance; nothing could be further from the truth in re. to your understanding of him. No!, the rule of faith cannot be different, that’s never been how the ‘rule of faith’ is conceived (they are self same). For TF Torrance scripture becomes God’s Word as it finds its terminus in its deep ‘depth’ reality as it points beyond itself to Christ (who is the inner-logic of the theologic the the scriptures presuppose in their various occasional writings). So Barth’s reading, much like Calvin’s (his “spectacles”) sees Scripture as Witness (see Jn 5.39), and primarily as sacramental; again as it finds its res ‘reality’ to whom it bears witness—so Scripture is the Apostolic Deposit left to bear witness to its reality in Christ. YOu can’t get anymore orthodox than that. I would argue that a classic theory of revelation that collapses revelation, in toto, into the ‘paper’ of scripture (as the classically Reformed understanding does; which it sees Scripture as the principium of their theology, or the epistemological ground through which we approach God) is problematic on various fronts. Primary of which is that scripture as Revelation becomes annexed to a philosophical mode of inquiry that in itself is not dogmatically ordered in a way that we can say that its reality is ultimately grounded in Christ; since we have annexed it to our ‘human’ modes of inquiry that are themselves abstracted from the only real humanity available, which is found in Jesus Christ. We ought to see scripture as Witness, and place it in the realm of soteriology and sanctification; this way it is taken up within God’s Triune speech act to us through the spirated witness of the Holy Spirit that finds its coinhering reality from and through the homoousially shaped humanity of Jesus Christ. It is as we participate by the Spirit in the humanity of the Son, that we have eyes to see and ears to hear what God’s Triune speech is deposited in the Apostolic Witness, or Scripture. And this way Scripture is not put in a place, i.e. as load bearing the Christian truth—which is Christ’s job, the purpose and point of all creation—that distorts its own intended role as a Witness bearer V. the ‘bearer’ itself.
Paul, see this little post: http://growrag.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/scripture-in-soteriology-not-epistemology/
Duane,
See my reply to Paul.
OK. I’ll check out the link.
Thanks