Questions concerning biblical theology

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

Where should the focus of biblical theology be? I maintain that it should proceed along the lines of historical critical methodology (which is not merely the grove of academe, but a useful tool for the believing community), with an enlarged vision. According to Luke T. Johnson, (1998), the Bible has been taken captive by academe, and the result is unhappy: "Biblical Theology fails worst when it succeeds best. When theologians take up its distilled propositions or principles as `the biblical witness,' the living conversation between theology and Scripture is not opened but closed. Biblical Theology remains primarily an academic exercise, a variety of the history of ideas or, perhaps, an ethnography of past cultures" (172). He appeals to the "imaginary world of Scripture" (e.g., the vitality of the biblical symbol of "way") as an approach to both Testaments: "the claim to have experienced the same living God through the Lord Jesus Christ was the most compelling reason for joining two disparate collections of composition into a single anthology called Scripture. And it is the possibility of experiencing that same Living God in the world today that makes the doing of Christian theology anything more than a sterile academic exercise" (177). However, there is a danger in personifying Academe; all depends on the vision of the academic. Perhaps biblical theology, which cannot be defined anyway, as we have seen, should include data such as liturgy (so M. O'Connor 1995: 95). This would go beyond the realia of Temple worship and the specific prescriptions of the Torah to a valuation of corporate worship; in what way Is liturgy a resource for theology? The clearly different liturgies of both Testaments are additional reasons against contriving a spurious unity for biblical theology. But the vision of Exod 19:6, "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation," should not be passed over. At the very least, theological analysis is expected to provide some orientation to the life of the community.

An enlarged vision is being forced upon academic biblical theology by the several side approaches of sociology, liberation, feminism and reader response in general. These are all perspectives, but none of them will succeed without communicating an experience of the text. If the text is laid open to readers, a salutary theology, even if selective, is possible. A. Campbell proposes approaching the Bible as an invitation to thought--"to think, to search, to choose" (17) in its various types of literature; it evokes inspiration and challenge, comfort and aid, or simply reflection. The text can be "an invitation to reflect on how life is best lived before God. As a text that invites, it reveals to its readers a God who does not dominate and determine but invites to faith and reflective living" (21). If the authority of the text is seen in the lively experience it communicates, theology is present. Experiencing the text is the work of the reader who invests it with some kind of authority. D. Bartlett called attention to the way in which different portions of the Bible lay claim to authority: prophetic oracles, wisdom, the authority of story/historical narratives. Of the book of Job he writes, "the authority comes from the story's ability to involve us, to entice us, to question us, and finally to shift the way in which we see ourselves and the world and the way in which we puzzle about God" (71). This literary reading prevents a homogenization of the biblical word, and it differentiates the claims that are made upon the reader. Similarly, W. Vogels emphasizes the literary claim that the text makes. While it is inspired, it is also inspiring if the reader is open to it. The history of interpretation shows that a spiritual authority resides in the Bible for those who choose to read it in that light, who are not satisfied merely to find a doctrinal norm. A dialogue between Bible and reader is not possible if the reader comes to the text parti pris.