Questions concerning biblical theology

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Fall, 2000 by Roland E. Murphy

The emphasis on history of religion has given new impetus to the study of the social background presupposed in the biblical texts. R. Albertz has described sharply the vitality of this understanding: "The history of Israelite religion is not a bloodless history of ideas but a living process of constant controversy, an ongoing dispute between different groups in Israelite society" (1994: 18). However stimulating this understanding may be, there is no escaping the danger of heaping one hypothesis upon another. Our sources for the reconstruction of contending groups are meager, and the argument is often the weak one, ex silentio.

John Collins proposes a unique model of biblical theology. There is an overlap with the history of religion. Biblical theology is not normative; it is an area of historical theology, focussed on the Bible, that is a source for systematic theology. His view, termed "socio-historical criticism," allows only an historical understanding of God by the Israelites. It is not a confessional religious statement about the nature of God; rather, only the view of the writer/community is presented. On the one hand, the theology of the biblical text seems eliminated, for it makes no more than an historical claim. On the other, the confessional--dogmatic approach exemplified by B. Childs, is avoided. Collins presents his view in an analysis of the book of Daniel. Among other things, he singles out the "the deterministic God of Daniel" as atypical, and concludes that this is not a "revealed truth but is a way of construing the world which led to a particular course of action" (26). It may be doubted, however, that Collins has escaped the history/theology conflict. The deterministic aspect of divine rule in Daniel is of one piece with divine determinism that permeates the Bible--and that appears to be a theological datum. Moreover, it is not clear how this approach provides a service for systematic theology. One can perhaps summarize the tension between history of religion and biblical theology as an overlap, but the theoretical elaboration of the relation between the two is not clear.

A Theological Focus on Biblical Interpretation

What does "biblical theology" stand for, then? I have claimed that a unified "biblical theology" is not possible. But this is not to deny the contributions that the several "theologies" have made. The biblical literacy of those who have consulted such works has surely increased. Yet the very discussion of what is biblical theology has entered a strange cul de sac. Modesty is in order. That means one can still appropriate pertinent "theological" interpretations of the Bible which both support and correct the assumptions brought to interpretation. In modern times the initial impetus for biblical theology came from the need to preserve the independence of biblical exegesis against the encroachment of doctrinal systematics. Since the Bible is neither a bag of prooftexts nor a statement of eternal, unchangeable truths, a different focus is needed now.