It is no longer valid to ask for a unity or consensus in biblical studies. The only unity or consensus that was possible in the past was built upon and inextricably tied to things such as Positivism, Elitism, Colonialism, Imperialism, Ethnocentrism, Romanticism, or Sexism, which are no longer acceptable or valid bases. The essential prerogative of biblical studies must now be to ask for and seek a multidisciplinary enterprise and a pluralistic awareness.
The definition that shook the theological world and began the modern movement:
Biblical theology possesses a historical character, transmitting what the sacred writers thought about divine matters; dogmatic theology, on the contrary, possesses a didactic character, teaching what a particular theologian philosophizes about divine matters in accordance to his ability, time, age, place, sect, or school, and other similar things.
Johann Gabler, 1787, quoted from Old Testament Theology by Gerhard Hasel, p. 16
A profound statement. And yet for all that it had to offer, it suffered from Positivism (a disease quite common among Enlightenment rationalist minds). The definition assumes that 1. what sacred writers thought
in all its strangeness and otherness to ourselves and our culture and in its distance from us both in time and experience is relatively insignificant, 2. that the modern mind with its own world-views, beliefs, customs, politics, desires, and subjective lenses doesn’t color, distort, and impose itself upon that discovery, and that 3. this is in contrast to those who are interested in religious dogma who do impose themselves upon the intent of the sacred writers and thus infringe on the enterprise.
First, trying to understand an ancient mind, let alone an ancient author’s mind, is laden with incredible difficulty, numerous limitations, and plethoric avenues of uncertainty, confusion, and misunderstanding. And all this only increases with the distance in time, place, and space. I would not hesitate to say that the purpose and intent of New Testament writers and the meaning their texts had for them (not even considering OT texts), is probably, for the most part, entirely beyond the ability of an average, educated person to understand. No, you didn’t misread me. I’m calling the vast majority of professing, educated believers across the entire earth completely ignorant about their own religious texts and unable to come to a relatively acceptable understanding of them.
Second, we are no longer living in an age when one can get away with claiming an objective
or unbiased
position—where one can just say they’re sticking to the facts.
Although some would go beyond what is possible by saying there is no such thing as a fact or no such thing as that which is objective, it is rather the situation that no fact and no objective reality can come to us without being distorted and interpreted and filtered by us. So there may (and must indeed) be a fact, but we will always and ever only have access to a skewed representation of that fact and not the fact itself. Everything we think, feel, experience, or sense is controlled and defined by our own subjectivity, our own world-view, our own belief system, our own limitations whether they be physical, emotional, mental, or other, and even our own desires. This is a large part of what makes the first task so difficult—because in order to truly understand someone else completely other than us, we have to step outside of ourselves, which is not only literally impossible to do, but is counter-intuitive. Our own individually unique states predispose us to see the ancient mind a certain way and to hide from us the other ways of seeing them.
So third, it is ridiculous to think that just because someone is interested in religious dogma, that this somehow puts them in a place of methodological danger that does not exist elsewhere. In fact, far from revealing a separation between the dogmatist and the biblical theologian, the definition above is, itself, a DOGMA that is no different from the other in degree, but only in kind. And it becomes, thereby, self-refuting since it claims that biblical theology cannot come from those who are interested in supporting a dogma of their own conviction and that is precisely what this definition of biblical theology is itself doing. The only thing such a definition can accomplish is triumphalism—we’re better than you because we think this way and you don’t. It can make no real or adequate distinction.
I do want to say, however, that in several other respects, this quote is right on track. It fundamentally advanced biblical theology
in a positive direction by giving priority to reason and by paving the way to many of the methods (such as historical, social-scientific, literary, and folkloric) that are enabling us to peer beneath the layers of obscurity that went unnoticed, underestimated, or were just not appreciated previously.
On a final side note, I would also like to, perhaps, subvert the original quote if not simply bring it more in line with our modern context, by saying that the enterprise of biblical theology or the errors involved are not any more limited to or by the male population (the quote should more appropriately say in accordance to his or her ability, time, age, place, sect, or school, and other similar things
). This may be one of the saving graces that helps us to progress, since we are no longer annulling or repressing (at least officially) the feminine mind, which accounts for half of what makes us human. Already, feminist studies have opened up a whole new world of insight into texts and times that was not previously engaged with or regarded. As entirely new questions and perspectives are brought to mind from this very different half of the population, we will have many more opportunities to critically analyze what we think and why we think it, which, hopefully, can aid in our search for better understanding and for an understanding of that which is other than us.
