Fundamentals reconsidered

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Winter, 2006 by David M. Bossman

Whatever is fundamental to religious belief and practice has come under intense scrutiny as religionists come to recognize the consequences of the faith of their true believers. Somewhere in the spectrum of belief and practice, religion can become dangerous. Those who commit themselves absolutely to their religious beliefs might become saints. They also might become suicide bombers.

Pope Benedict XVI seemed to be saying this in his badly received (when taken from its context) citing of a conversation between a 14th-century Christian Byzantine emperor and an Islamic Persian. Benedict quoted Manuel II: "'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'" Was this intended as a broadside against today's Muslims, or, more significant, a recognition that extremists can and do press beliefs beyond the limits of civility? The context within the Pope's message seemed to be totally ignored by those who rioted against the pope for uttering these words.

Christians must not be the first to throw stones at Muslims who overstretch their religious commitments. History well attests to violence and brutality in the clash between true believers within the Christian churches as well as between Christians and other religionists. Why should charges of the same be laid singularly at the feet of Muslims today?

More to the point is the recognition of fundamentalist myopia, with claims to exclusive truth, unique access to the divine, and moral superiority. At a conference in early September, the Esalen Institute's Center for Theory and Research sponsored the third in a series on fundamentalism, this being a symposium on Jewish Fundamentalism. A critical factor seemed to rest on the extent to which each religious tradition can admit of the pluralism and individual rights as exemplified in societies that build upon the values of modernity.

Religionists have long feared modern sciences on the assumption that their proponents intend to replace the supremacy of religious faith with secular sciences. Claiming that rationalism replaces religion, traditional believers shout down scientific evidence as unproven, dangerous, and even the work of Satan. It was so with the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Commission until the c-change that Divino afflante spiritu inaugurated in 1943, when modern critical methods in biblical research first found affirmation in the Catholic Church.

What took place in critical biblical research, belatedly for Catholics and not at all for other traditionalists, was the recognition that knowledge of contexts for biblical documents is essential for understanding their meaning. This awareness enables Bible readers today to delve into the distinctiveness of historical, linguistic, and social-world contexts that shape the meanings of biblical texts. The necessary information, derived in various modalities by present-day sciences, overrides the beliefs that derive from so-called literal readings of the Scriptures.

Those who grow impatient with the process of modern biblical criticism place themselves at risk for assuming that the meanings of scriptural texts focus singularly on the present with few or no controls deriving from their original settings. Thus, any word or phrase that can be seized upon to activate religious zeal carries the weight of divine mandate. Scriptures become a sourcebook for enthusiasts to justify whatever actions they find amenable to their convictions. Fear and hate seem to trump all other emotions in this endeavor.

Over the long haul, BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN authors have managed to piece together various components of research derived from modern critical methods, to help shape a biblical theology that is not only less virulent but also more authentic to the messages inherent in the texts. In Volume 36:1, a study of social memory within biblical texts derives from sociological research in how social groups remember the past. Assuming that memory is contextualized, each recital is shaped to the context of its retelling. In Volume 36:2, three authors study the shaping of biblical characters, and a fourth lays out a model for how critical scholarship has revitalized the ancient text for modern readers. In Volume 36:3 two authors address social issues that control meanings in the Gospel of John: the socio-political issue of relating to imperial Rome, and what Jesus taught about worship. A further cultural study shows how performance affected textual interpretations.

In the current issue, Volume 36:4, Robert K. Gnuse plays out the various theories of how Genesis 1-11 underwent a source and editing process to produce what readers today may be surprised to learn is an anti-monarchical position on the exercise of authority. In An Overlooked Message: The Critique of Kings and Affirmation of Equality in the Primeval History, Gnuse sorts through the sources and editings to recognize a political setting in which Judeans found kingship pretentious and contrary to the commitment to their deity.