Just a quick observation; doesn’t it seem like most of your Biblical Studies guys and gals (and I mean as far as the discipline) are very naΓ―ve theologically? Let me qualify this; I don’t mean to denigrate all bib studies folks, but what I am highlighting is how it often seems to me that (often) up and coming bib studies folks don’t have a clue about how to interpret the ‘inner logic’ and theo-logic that the text of Scripture presupposes all the time (like the Trinitarian shape that makes scripture go round). ‘Biblical Studies’ folk can tell you all about the impact that Second Temple Judaism has upon the interpretation of scripture, but they haven’t the foggiest when it comes to the impact that the incarnation ought to have when exegeting passages that have to do with the soteriological category of ‘Justification’. They can parse the Greek, and do great lexical and syntactical analyses; but become agitated when the theologian steps in and inserts the category of ‘union with Christ’ into the exegetical exposition. I run across this quite often in the blogosphere. Surely this can run the other way too; the dogmatician can get so caught up in his “dogmatizing,” that he or she never opens their Bible. But this post is mostly a gripe aimed at bib studies folks. I think they need to learn one more language; it’s called Theology!
Hi Bobby. As much as I appreciate theology; often I find that theology has more holes in it than what the Bible supports…many times the scriptures used are proof text in a way that completely isolates them from their narrative context.
Deciding which ‘theology’ to do is a tricky question and one that is biased towards the individuals inclinations.
Hi Craig,
A good theology is open-structured; meaning that it does not seek to be totalizing in its approach (and thus static). So there is good theological approach and theology, and bad theology. But my point is a little different, really; my point is that I don’t usually see bib studies folk (and I include myself in that realm, my Masters is bib studies) realizing or admitting the power that a priori theological commitments have in their exegetical prowess. And this si what I’d like to see bib studies folk do better at. I.e. NT Wright interprets through a Covenantal lens (a highly charged theological construct).
Hi Bobby – I sadly agree – (and I say this as a “biblical studies person” myself): there is a strong backlash in biblical studies against systematics. But I’m convinced that you’ll never be a good exegete until you’re a good theologian.
A friend of mine uses this approach:
Biblical Studies Person (BSP): “I don’t need systematics – I just need the Bible”
Reply: “What’s the Bible?”
BSP: “You know, the 66 books of the canon”
Reply: “And just where does the Bible tell you that?!”
Bobby, welcome to the state of the academy since the period of Protestant Orthodoxy and the subsequent Romantic enlightenment. π But it’s not enough to tell either side that they need the other — we must be (and in many places have been) growing together in our disciplines. Related: Have you read Rahner’s Foundations of Christian Faith? An interesting notion of fundamental theological practice, and useful.
@Matthew,
I like your friend’s approach, and I am so glad you recognize this problem too; especially considering your area of expertise (I mean discipline wise). Your doktorvater is someone who I think embodies what it means to try and approach things from both directions (btw, I used his commentary on I Corinthians for my Masters Thesis on I Corinthians 1.17-25 — you’re blessed to have had him as your supervisor [which I know I don’t have to tell you]).
PS. There is a certain blog, that you and I are both aware of, that exemplifies (in strong ways) the attitude I am griping against in this post π .
@Matt,
Yes, this is a problem that has bothered me for a very long time! That’s one of the reasons why I so appreciate both of the theologians I have currently pictured in my banner for the blog; they both represent Christians who get the relation there is between exegesis and theology. And then they practice what they get (even if they do so imperfectly at points).