IVP - Addenda & Errata - Theologoumenon

Theologoumenon

Driving to our annual IVP editors’ retreat at the end of September, we were divided into two cars, with the academic editors riding together. We were not a half mile down the road before the term theologoumenon was being bandied about—and with some debate as to what exactly it means. Andy Le Peau, our editorial director, thought this immediate diving into abstract theological argument was a quintessential IVP Academic moment.

As might be expected, once we were back on home turf, someone needed to look up theologoumenon in an authoritative source. So Jim Hoover copied me a definition. And I copied him the definition from the 3rd edition of Richard and Kendall Soulen's Handbook of Biblical Criticism, which (whew!) vindicated the point I was making—that there is a usage in biblical studies that’s not quite the same as in systematics--the historicizing of an originally theological statement. (By the way, we find their spelling [theologumenon] to be in error.)

But never mind. I now propose that in systematic theology we speak instead of theologluemenon—a theological idea that spans the distance between two or more fixed doctrines and, we trust, adheres faithfully.

The other day, Audrey Ward, our fantastic IVP receptionist, related to me how things appear from her side of the desk:

Some time back . . . the editors would gather to go out to lunch. They would meet near my desk, and the conversations they had—well, they may as well have been speaking a different language, because if I did happen to be "tuned in" to what they were saying, I had no idea what they were talking about—they would be speaking in a terminology with which I was not familiar. I realize the terms they were using were sort of a "shorthand" for a view or thought process, but it was really something!

Here’s a sampling of what Audrey hears:

Scandrett: “What do you think of the logos asarkos?”

Hoover: “Well, I think it’s a perfect example of a theologoumenon”

Deddo: “Well, along with Barth, I affirm it. But as Hunsinger points out, ‘There is no logos asarkos alongside or behind the logos ensarkos that we should seek to gain independent access to.’ And as Torrance says, . . .”

Le Peau (arriving late): “Logos asarkos? I think I’ll have mine with Swiss. No, maybe Provolone.”

The next time an IVP Academic editor tells you to dial down your technical language, well . . . I’ve given you all the material you need for a response!

Posted by Dan Reid at November 2, 2007 10:51 AM