EXAMINING TRUTH AND AUTHORITY:
Strength enin g t he Firs t Par adi gm of Bi b lical Studies
Thr oug h K yria rch al An alysi s
By Michelle Chaplin SanchezAbstract
The f irst, t he olo gic al p ar ad igm o f bib lic a l stud ies s ta n ds awk war d ly a t t he pr ob le m at ic d iv id e bet we e n the churc h an d the ac ad e my. I n t he ac ad e my, ap pro ac hes t o th e B ib le- assacre d ar e of te n se en as t oo v alue- la de n t o cla im a s po t in t he disc ipline at larg e, exac er bat ing t he gu lf b etw ee n u niv ers it ies an d bro ad er s ociety v is- à-vis t he B ible. I ar gue t hat b iblic al stud ies mus t re ta in t he f irst p ara dig m in or der to be soc iet a lly an d et h ica lly con scien tious , a nd t ha t th e so u rce of t he f irst par a dig m’s exclus io n cen ters on its fr eq ue nt a t tac hm e nt to f lat not ions of tru th a nd a ut hor ity. By u tilizing a ky riarc ha l cr it iq ue to h igh lig ht t h e as su m pt io ns in her en t in no tio ns o f tru th a nd aut hor ity , th e firs t p ara dig m ca n be g in t o fill out an a p pro ach t o the Bib le as “Go d’s Wor d” t h at is w ise to t he v er y hu m an p o wer strug g les a t w ork bo th in t h e t ext a nd in its c o nt em p orary use s, op en ing u p m ultiv ale nt un der st an din gs of tru th , more nu anc ed not ions of sacr ed n ess, an d o pp ort un it ies for c olla b orat ion with oth er par a dig ms.
Introduction
Democratizing Biblical Studies prov id es a h elpf u l descr ip tio n o f t he d o min an t
par a dig ms at w ork in b ib lica l s tu dies to day , 1 an d arg ues th at t hes e par a dig ms c a n a n d
sho uld in ter act c ollab or ativ e ly ins te ad of co m pe t it ive ly. T h e f ourt h p ara dig m, or th e
intercultural/interreligious-radical democratic paradigm, in p art icu lar , prov id es a kyr iarc h al2
an a lytic t ha t c an c h alle n ge th e ot her p ara d ig ms to r e-th ink t he ir pre te nse t o o b ject ive
valid ity , alon g w ith t he ir t ac it r eific at io n of p ow er struct ures , an d in t his w ay e ncour ag e th e
various p ara d ig ms to int erac t an d s tru gg le co nst ructiv ely w it h eac h ot her Th e ho p e in
de line at ing t he four p ar ad ig m s is t h at sc h olars c an a tta in co m p ete ncy in e ac h, allow ing for a
mor e r ob ust, mu lt i-d ime ns io na l a nd co nscie nt io us ex a m in at io n of th e bib lic a l t exts. I n t h is
pa p er, I w ill ex plore mer it of th e f ourt h p ara dig m vis- à-vis its a bility t o op en u p all of th e
par a dig ms t o s tru gg le a n d co lla bor at io n, a nd I w ill exa m ine ho w th is c ou ld str en gt he n th e
first , religious-the*logical-scriptural paradigm of bib lic a l st ud ie s an d allow it to b et ter en g ag e
with a nd rec eiv e critiqu e fr o m t h e o th er par a dig ms T her e is muc h at st ake in s uch
en ga ge m en t in sof ar as it cou ld de ep ly c ha lle ng e t he tro ub lin g div id e be tw ee n th e aca de my
an d t h e ch urch , as we ll as prov id e an im por ta nt link t o th e co nc erns a n d str ug gles of p eo ple
1 Th e f our p ara d ig ms ar e 1) t he religious-the*logical-scriptural paradigm, or t he pr e- mo der n par a dig m st ill in use in th eo lo gy de p art me nts a n d ch urch es; 2) t he critical-scientific-modern paradigm, w hic h is th e do m in a nt histor ic al-cr it ic al p ar ad ig m of b iblic al stu d ies ; 3) t he cultural-hermeneutic-postmodern paradigm, or t he liter ary- her me n eut ica l p ara d ig m w hic h ha s beco m e m ore po p ular in t he 2 0th c en tury; a nd 4) intercultural/interreligiousemancipatory-radical democratic paradigm, t h e par a dig m o f sc ho lars s it ua te d in pos tco lo n ia list or po litic a lly- orien te d lib erat ion ist for ms of cr it iq ue, inc lu ding , but n ot limite d to, fe m in is t, La tino /a , Afr ica n A m eric a n, a nd n on -het eros ex ist stu dies
2 Kyriarchy is a ne olog is m c oin ed by Sch üss ler F ior enz a fr o m t h e Gre ek kyrios or “ lor d,” wh ic h po in ts t o a s truct ure of su per/ su bor din atio n c har act eriz ed n ot on ly by m en ov er wo m en a nd ch ildr en, a s in t he ter m p atriarc hy, b ut by a ma ster /serv a nt s truct ure d relat io ns hip.
“on th e grou n d ” Th ere are , aft er all, a gr ea t n u m ber of p eo ple w ho en g ag e in a nd ar e
for me d by exis ting soc ial struc ture s, w hos e liv es d irect ly in ter act w it h t he ch urch, b ut no t t he
aca de my If b iblic al stu d ies is t o be r e-e nv ision e d an d re- sh a pe d t hro ug h pe d ag ogy as a
pu blic foru m of ma ny v oic es, m uch is at s tak e in ho w th e f irs t par ad igm o per at es in t h at foru m.
As a Chr ist ian t he olog ian- in- tra ining , I a m qu it e f a miliar w it h t he Bib le larg ely fr om
the p ers pect iv e o f t he f irst p ara d ig m, a n d ye t str an ge ly ill at e as e wit h th e id ea o f us ing t he
B ib le in my o wn w ork For c en tur ies , C hr ist ia n t he ology h as b ee n s h ap ed by int eract ion
with , a n d in ter pret at io n of , t he Bib le as t he “ W or d o f Go d,” th ou gh t he ex act r elat io n of th e
B ib lica l text to t he “ W or d o f Go d” ha s lo ng b ee n a m att er o f de ba te a nd f lex ib ility S ince th e
En lig ht en m en t, ho w ever, view s o f t he Bib le h av e b eco m e incr ea sin gly p olar ize d bet we e n
the p os it ivis t-sc ie nt if ic e th os of a n aca de m ic hist oric al-cr it ica l stu dy o f t h e B ib le o n t h e o ne
ha n d, an d th e re act io n ary f un d am e nt alist- liter a list st udy of t he B ible as th e in erra nt or
in fa llib le “ W or d o f Go d” on th e ot her. H ow c a n c ont e m por ary t he olog ian s, wh o are
com p elle d t o ad dr ess th e imp ort anc e o f t h e B ib le in th e liv es of b eliev ers, b ut s till rec og n ize
th at liter alis m b ot h le ad s t o in te llectu a l dis ho n es ty a nd a br eak w it h th e div ersity o f t h e
trad it ion it se lf, f in d a v oic e in th is ma elstro m ? H ow c a n t he o lo gian s disc uss th e B ible in a
way th at is ne it her r ed ucib le to n or o p pos e d t o h ist oric al critic is m, b ut w hic h no ne th eless
sta nd s in th e older tr ad it io n of r ob ust ly en ga g in g th e B ib le as a s acre d t ext for th e pur po ses
of t h eo lo gy an d with a n inter est in t h e lif e of th e church ? T he c on tinu a lly-r eified a n d
po le m ica l d ich oto my b et we en t he ac ad e my an d church is t he gr ea tes t barr ier to suc h
he althy int erac tion in th e f irst p ar ad ig m , but I a m conv ince d t h at s uch int eract ion is ex act ly
wh at is n ee de d to bre ak do w n t h at dic ho to my If th e div id e be tw ee n th e aca de my a nd t he
com m un ity is to b e cr oss ed, t he ac ad e my mus t act ive ly e n ga ge t he c onc ern s o f t he
com m un ity a nd lear n to un der st an d an d, to so m e ex te nt, sh are its a ppr oac h to th e B ible
For t h is r eas o n, I se e gre at p oss ib ility f or Sc hüs sler F iore nz a’s d isc uss io n t o op en u p
ways f or t he olog ian s t o o nc e a g ain en g ag e t he B ib le, t ak in g up a m uch- ne e de d s po t in th e
foru m of m a ny vo ice s t h at is sh are d, n ot on ly by th e critical-scientific-modern paradigm (seco nd p ar ad ig m) of b iblic al stu d ies , but a lso b y th e cultural-hermeneutic-postmodern paradigm (t h ird p ara dig m), a nd t he intercultural/interreligious-radical democratic paradigm (fourt h p ara dig m), in wh ic h Sc hüs sler F ior enz a hers elf is s it ua te d Th e f ourt h p ara dig m ’s
use of a kyr iarch al a n aly tic, or p ow er-p o lit ic al a n alys is of syst e ms of su bor din at io n, h as t h e ab ility t o c all in to qu est ion a nd re la tiv ize t he ass um pt io ns of t he ot her p ara d ig ms inc lu ding
the f irst p ara d ig m, w h ich is lar ge ly abs e nt in t he aca de my , a n d t he sec o nd p ara d ig m th at do m in at es t h e aca de my. Per ha ps , t hro ug h f ac in g t he ch allen ge p ose d by th is a na lyt ic, th ere
is a way for t he olog ians t o o nce a g ain c la im th eir use of t he B ib le as suf fic ie nt ly r ig oro us
an d y et ho ne st, minin g its r es ource s w it h out su b m itt in g to p ositiv ist e m p iric is m or
fun d am e nt alist lit era lis m. Th is c ou ld pr ovide a n im port a nt s p ace to o pe n ly d isc uss th e
po litic a lly- exp lo siv e s ocia l an d et hic al issu es t h a t invo lve t he B ib le, as w e ll as a llo w bot h
fa it h co m mu n it ies a n d sc ho lar s t o lo ok f or ne w o pp ortu n it ies to w ork t og et her for just ice in
the w orld
In w hat f ollo ws, I w ill att e m pt t o m a p o ut th e s itu at io n o f t h e f irst p ara d ig m to d ay,
bot h h ow it fu nct io ns curre nt ly, a nd h ow it ca n p ote nt ia lly t ake u p its p lace in t he p ub lic
foru m of m a ny vo ice s. My ar gu me nt w ill fo llo w t wo b as ic st e ps. Firs t, I will ar gu e t h at th e
religious-the*logical-scriptural paradigm mu st r e sum e its p lace in t he br o ad er co nver sat ion
on b ib lica l stu dies b oth f or t he sak e of th e disc ip line ’s co her enc e an d f or t h e s ake of its
futur e as a pu b lic d isco urse I n do ing so, I w ill e xa mine t he stre ng th s an d we akn ess of t wo
rece nt m an if est at io ns of t he firs t par a dig m in t he ac ad e my a n d ass ess th eir im p lic at io ns for
the w ay th e f irst p ar ad ig m s hou ld be r e-e nvision ed I n t he sec on d p art, I will arg ue th at th e
first p ar ad ig m can r esu m e its p lac e in critic al d is cussion s by v irtu e o f att en tion t o t he crit ic al
le ns of th e f ourt h p ara d ig m. My pro ject h ere w ill act as a sort of t he oret ic al pr oleg o me na t o
a re- env is io n ed fir st par a dig m, a pro ject in te nt o n artic ulat ing th e nec ess ary ph ilos o ph ic al
cha ng es th at must t ake p lac e an d th e re sourc es th at m igh t be he lpfu l in c arrying o ut t h ese
cha ng es
1. Should the First Paradigm Be Re-envisioned and Included?
a. The Disciplinary Method of the First Paradigm
Schüs sler F ior e nza at t imes ref ers to th e f irst p a rad ig m as t he “pr e-m o der n”
par a dig m o f bib lic a l st ud ie s A lt ho ug h th e pre- m od ern a ppr o ach es t o a nd use s o f t he B ib le
exh ib it ed s ig nific a nt div ers ity, a d ivers ity re pres ent ed , t o v aryin g d e gree s, in t he
cont e mp or ary ma n ife st at io n o f t he f irst p ara d ig m, th e firs t par a dig m s ee ms to b e
char act eriz ed pr ed o min ant ly by it s re lat io n t o t h e B ib le a s a co m p lex s ourc e o f gu id a nce,
div in ity , tr ut h, or aut hor ity. W hile it s har es th e f o urth p ara d ig m ’s c onc ern f or im p act on
society a nd th e w ay lif e is live d, it a ls o st a nds in rat her st ark t en sion w it h t h e f ourt h
par a dig m ins of ar as th e f irst p ar ad igm is co nce ived au th orita tiv ely , or “kyriarch a lly , ” a s it
wer e A nd w h ile t he f ourt h par a dig m wo uld not n ecess ar ily tak e iss ue w it h t he va lu e
accor de d t o t he Bib le by t he firs t par a dig m t he four th p ar ad ig m itse lf is int en t o n c laim ing
an d pro m ot in g c erta in v alues in its a p pro ach it is th is qu a lity t h at oft en ca use s t ens ion
bet w ee n t he f irst a nd t he seco n d an d t h ird p ar a dig ms, w hic h oft e n s eek to m a in ta in a n a ir o f
value- neu tra l ob jectiv ity co ncer nin g t he Bib le as a n anc ie nt tex t T h ese var io us t en sion s
reve al th e firs t par ad ig m t o be th e m ost pr ob le m at ic a n d ev e n ma lig ne d w it hin t h e aca de m ic
disc ipline of b iblica l stu dies
Th is is es pec ia lly ap p are nt in its c urre nt po pu lar m a nif est at ion m ost close ly
ass ociat ed w it h f un da m e nta list lit era lis m, a n ap pro ach so f ar re m ove d fr o m t he o th er t hre e
par a dig ms t h at it is h as n ot be e n u nco m m on for th e f irst p ar ad ig m to b e c o mp le te ly ig n ore d
in sch o lar ly disc uss io ns of t he v ar iou s par ad ig m s of , or a p pro ach es to, b iblic al stu d ies
Fern a nd o S eg ovia, for ex a mp le, wh os e work tra ces t he d eve lo p me nt of b iblic al stu d ies ,
be gins w it h histor ic al cr it ic is m an d proc ee ds to literary a nd cu ltur a l critic is m, e nd ing w it h
id eo lo g ica l cr it icis m 3 Such exclus io n of th e f irst p ara dig m, h ow ever , st a nds n ot o nly at o dd s
with h is pur por te d c onc ern for “fles h-a n d-b lo od” rea ders , it also r eve a ls a pro b le m at ic pic ture of t he im port a nce of , an d r eas o n f or, t h e disc ipline of b iblica l stu dies in t he f irst
place . I t is har d to im ag in e ho w b ib lica l s tu dies c an co nt in ue c oh ere nt ly if ties to th e firs t
par a dig m are c ut. H ist oric ally sp eak ing , t he sec on d, th ird , an d four th p ara d ig ms o f bib lic al
stud ies are a r es po ns e t o t he e lev at ed st atu s t h e B ib le a lre a dy e n joy ed , lar ge ly with in t he
first p ar ad ig m , prior t o t h e sc ie nt if ic rev olut io n T he B ib le w as hav ing a n eff ect in t he w orld,
an a m b iva le nt y et e nor m ous eff ect , a n d it c o m m an de d th e att en tion of t hos e wh o
recog n ize d t h is eff ect a nd b eg a n ex a min in g it w ith diff ere nt m et ho ds If th os e lat er
ap pro ac hes , wh ic h w ere res p ons es to th e f irs t a ppr oac h, ar e severed fro m th at f irst
ap pro ac h, th en su dd e nly th e diff ere nce b etw ee n b ib lica l s tu dies a nd th e ge ner a l f ie lds of
liter ary st ud ie s, arch a eo lo gy/ ph ilo lo gy/ history , p ostco lon ia l stu dies, or crit ic al t heory
bec o mes d iff icu lt to just ify W it hou t t he inc lus io n of th e f irs t par ad ig m, it is as if t he mo der n
3 Se e F ern an d o S eg ovia a nd M ary A n n T olber t, eds ., Reading From This Place, v ol. 2 (M in ne a po lis: Fortr ess Pr ess, 2 0 00) , su m m ary o n pp . 1-7.
disc ipline of b iblica l stu dies w as cr ea te d by a prim al m urd er t h at c an n ot qu it e be r epr ess ed
bec aus e it lives o n in its O th er, th e c hurc h
In lig ht of th is situ at io n, p erh ap s a mor e c om pr e he ns ive a nd co nsiste nt res p ons e t o
the ac a de my ’s t e nd ency to ign ore t he firs t par a d ig m c o me s fr o m H ector Ava lo s wh o has
arg ue d t ha t bib lic a l st ud ie s as we kn ow it mus t, in f act, e nd . H e off ers a v ie w th at p lac es th e
first p ar ad ig m a n d t he Mo der n par a dig ms of h ist oric al-cr it ica l a nd lit erary-cr itic a l bib lic a l
stud ies ag a ins t eac h oth er in po le m ica l op p osition a nd ar gu es t h at th e la tter a p pro ach es
hav e dis m a nt le d t he cre dib ility of t he for m er a p p roac h In h is v ie w, t he o nly r e ma inin g
pur pos e of b ib lica l s tu dies is to er ad ica te th e la s t ves tiges o f t he f irst p ara dig m As t h e
B ib le’s s acre d an d aut hor it at ive st atu s is excis e d, t h e f ie ld o f bib lic a l st ud ie s will b eco m e
incr ea sing ly un nec ess ary as a sp ecia l d isc ipline 4
Elis a bet h Sch üss ler Fiore nz a’s mos t rec en t wor k, h ow ever , re jec ts s uch a view . S he
po in ts out t ha t s imp ly c laim in g th at th e B ible is “ in f act” not s acre d or aut hor it at ive d oes n ot
elimin ate t his st at us in t he lives of ma ny pe o ple arou n d t he w orld a nd, mor eov er, do es
not h in g to r e mov e t he o ppr ess ive str uctur es of po wer th at t he B ib le tac it ly r einf orces inso far
as it is h eld as au th orita tiv e an d t hu s u n que stio n ed I nst ea d of de ny in g its re lev anc e, sh e
arg ues , t he Bib le m ust b e re ta ine d in t he lives of be liev ers but b e s u bjecte d to qu est io n in g;
it m ust be o pe n ly an d cr it ica lly an alyz ed f or its r het oric a n d imp lic it h eg e mo n ic id eo lo gies
The Bib le is so d ee p ly inscr ibe d in We ster n c on scio usn ess t ha t if we ar e t o work to war d a
bet ter w orld, it w ill b e in co nvers at io n a nd ar gu me nt with t h e B ib le a s s acre d, n ot by way of
its su ppr ess io n or r epr ess io n. In Democratizing Biblical Studies, s he wr ite s t ha t
Hect or Av
the ec lips e of th e re lig io us-t he * lo gic a l par ad igm is qu est io na b le n ot ju st in ter m s o f
fe min ist bu t also p ostco lon ial e m anc ipat ory c on cerns , s inc e bo th fe m inis t an d
pos tco lo n ia l s tu dies der ive t he ir str en gt h no t prim arily fr o m t h e ac a de my bu t esp ecia lly fro m soc ial- po lit ica l m ove me nt s f or ju stic e. B eca use mos t pos tco lo nia l an d
fe min ist b ib lica l r ea der s are no t loc at ed in t he u niv ers ity but in c o m mu nities of fa it h,
the re lig iou sly b as ed p ara d ig m of b iblic al stu d ie s m ust n ot b e ec lips ed . I f it is, o ne restr icts sch olarly w ork t o t h e aca de my a nd cuts off its in flue nce o n an d ut ility for com m un it ie s o f f a ith , c om m un it ie s t h at c ons titut e a s ig nific a nt p art of th e de mocr at ic pu blic 5
For t h is r eas o n, s he n ot o nly includ es th e f irs t p ara dig m in her de lin ea tion o f t he
par a dig ms of b ib lica l s tu dies, sh e also ex pa nd s the ra th er lim it ed view of t he firs t par a dig m
wh ic h s he pr ese nt ed in Rhetoric and Ethic T h er e, aft er aff ir m in g t he met h od olog ic al
nec ess ity of includ in g th e f irst p ar ad ig m in ter ms of c on n ect in g t o t h e ro le o f t he Bib le in t he
liv es of c ou nt les s in div idu als , s he d iscu sse d th e firs t par a dig m as a “f un d a me nt alist”
ap pro ac h t h at t e nds to s pir it ua liz e th e str ug g le f or just ice by re lyin g o n a liter a lis t re a ding o f
scrip tur e t ha t s ets fir m b ou nd ar ies , sc ap e go ats outs iders a nd , in tur n, r e ifies m at eria l
structur es of o ppr ess io n 6 Sh e po inte d out t ha t s uch a n a p pro ac h o bsc ures d iff ere nce s
with in t he fir st p ara dig m its elf, b etw ee n, f or ex a m ple, fu nd a me nt a lis t an d m ain line ch urch es,
an d f a ils t o re a liz e its o wn re lia nce up o n “a p art icular mo der n r at io n alist u nd erst an d in g” of
the tru th of re lig io n an d t h e aut hor ity of t he B ible as th e on ly “C hr ist ia n” a ppr o ach. “ Eve n
tho ug h c olon ialis t B ib licis m st an ds in op p osition to W est ern mo der nity,” s h e writ es, “it
nev erth e less s har es s o me of its b asic ide o lo gic al struc ture s. In sp it e of th e f act th at
fun d am e nt alis m c o mb ats mo der n lib era l r elig ion , it is its elf a mo der n p he no m en on . ” 7
5 E lisa be th Sc hüss ler F ior enz a, Democratizing Biblical Studies: Toward an Emancipatory Educational Space ( Lo uisv ille: W es t minst er J oh n K n ox Pres s, 20 0 9), 6 0
6 E lisa be th Sc hüss ler F ior enz a, Rhetoric and Ethic ( Min ne a po lis: F ortr ess, 1 9 99), 3 9- 40 .
7 Ib id., 4 1.
In Democratizing Biblical Studies, h o wever , s he trea ts t h e f irst p ar ad ig m more exp an siv ely a n d less p ejor at ive ly as t he religious-the*logical-scriptural paradigm 8 S he def ines it in ter ms of a n a ppr oac h to th e B iblic al record “as sacred scripture,” one that “hermeneutically explores what it means to say that, as Scripture, the Bible is the revealed, authoritative Word of G*d.”9 After outlining the mo re open-ended and fluid manifestations of this approach in the pre-modern period, Schüssler Fiorenza describes the contemporary first paradigm as manifested eith er in a fundame ntalist orientation on the ground, or a theological orientation in the acade my:
Lit era list fu nd a m ent a lis m ins ist s t ha t t he b iblic al mess a ge pr oclaim s u n ivers al mor a l v alues a nd tru th L ike mo der n orth o doxy an d m od ern scienc e, it cla ims t h at th is tr ut h c an b e pos it ive ly est a blis he d an d prov en. T hus, it s tress es v erb a l in sp ira tion a n d c alls for Chr ist ian s t o acce pt w ith out qu est io n th e B ible as t h e d ir ect, in erra nt Wor d of G *d . T his e m p ha sis o n v erb a l inerr ancy as sert s t ha t t he B ib le a n d its int erpr et atio n tr an sce nd ide ology a n d par ticu larity I t obsc ures t he p ow er re lat io ns an d in ter ests a t work in bib lic al tex ts a nd inter pr eta tion s Suc h a fu n da m en ta list
ap pro ac h e sch ew s a critic a l t he * lo gic a l her me n eut ics th at tak es th e lin gu ist ica lity an d histor icity of bib lic a l t exts int o accou nt . 10
The a lt ern at ive to a fu n da m en ta list a ppr oac h, h ow ever, br oa d ly ex e mp lif ie d by t he o lo gia ns
such as Dav id Tr acy, Ha ns Fre i, a nd Fr anc is Sc hüss ler F ior enz a, “is …r are ly s ee n as a p art
of bib lic a l st ud ies; inst ea d it is restr ict ed to t he d isco urses o f sys te m at ic t he * lo gy an d he nce
ha s lit tle in flue nce o n s tud e nts in bib lic a l st ud ie s . T he du a l-do m a in s plit of b iblica l stu dies is ,
as a r esu lt, sus ta ine d by s uch a du a lis tic d isc ip linary loca tion . H enc e, crit ic al th e *log ic al
reflect io n c an n ot bec o me fru itf ul a n d e ffec tiv e in th e disc ipline of b iblica l stu d ies . ”11
8 Sch üss ler Fiore nza , Democratizing, 63- 7.
9 Ib id , 6 3-4
10 Ib id., 6 6.
11 Ib id., 6 6-7 .
Schüs sler F ior e nza ’s m ost rece nt w ork t her ef or e ca lls both for ide olo gic al critic is m
vis-à-v is liter a lis m a n d f un d am e nt alis m in t he f irst par ad igm , and for cr it ica l th eo lo g ica l
reflect io n t o tak e a place in th e f ie ld o f bib lic a l st ud ies S he d oes n ot, h ow ever , artic ulat e
ho w t he f irst p ara d ig m c a n ad dres s t he se c onc e rns. In ste a d, her int en t is t o dev elop a
pe da go gy for b ib lica l s tu dies by firs t art iculat ing a me th od for t he fo urth p ar ad igm t ha t is
cap a ble of f ost er in g in ter act io n with th e ot her thr ee. Cle arly, t ho ug h, at te nt io n mu st be g ive n
to t he f irst p ara d ig m if h er ho pe f or a critic al a n d concr et e e m a ncipa tory sp ace f or bib lic al
stud ies is to bec o me a re ality As lo n g as t h is is not d on e, th e qu est io n r e ma ins as to
wh et her it is ev en p oss ible f or t h e f irst p ar ad ig m to e ng ag e c ons truct ive ly a nd
colla b orat iv ely w it h t he ot h er t hre e giv en its t he o retic a l an d t h eo lo gic a l co m m it m ent s In
order t o a sse ss ho w t h e f irst p ar ad ig m ca n en ga ge b oth ide o lo gic a l critic is m a nd t ake up a
critic a l t he o lo gic a l s po t in th e f ield of b ib lica l s tu dies, I will lo ok brief ly t o t wo ex a mp les of t h e
way th e firs t par a dig m has b ee n tak en u p in ac a de m ic circ les in t he last h alf-ce ntury , an d
disc uss w ha t les so ns c an b e le ar ne d fr o m e ac h.
b. Liberation Theology
Liber at io n th eo lo gy, in its m a ny m an if est at io ns, is p erh a ps t h e mo st no ta ble exa m p le
of t h e f irst p ara d ig m figur ing pr o mine nt ly in ac a d em ic d isco urses a n d actin g t o pro ble m atiz e
the b ou nd ar ies b et we en “t he ology” a nd “b iblic al stud ies.” R eco g niz in g th e po wer in here nt in the Bib le as t he “ Wor d of Go d” a nd it s ca p acity t o pr ov id e a pro ph et ic me ssa g e a n d in sp ire
concre te p olit ic al c h an ge o uts id e t he b ou n ds of t he ac ad e my, p io ne erin g liber at io n
the o lo gia ns s uch as Gust avo Gut ierr ez an d J a m es C on e hav e arg ue d fr o m scr iptur e t ha t
God ha s a pref ere nt ial o pt io n f or t he p oor ov er a nd a ga inst th e op pr essor 12 For Gut ierrez,
Con e, a nd ot h ers wh o s ta nd in th is th eo lo g ica l trajectory , t h is arg u me nt is v ar io usly ro ote d
in t he Ex od us narr at ives , t he pr o ph et ic writ ing s of t h e H ebr ew scr ipt ures , or in th e life ,
de at h, a nd r esurr ect io n of J esus a t t he h a nds o f Ro ma n o ppr ess ors. Th ese p o werf ul
rea din gs hav e f orev er altere d th e f ields of b oth bib lic a l st ud ie s an d t h eo lo gy, im port a nt ly
pro ble m atiz ing t he over-s p iritu alize d r ea din gs of he ge m o nic th eo lo g ies , an d dev elop ing a
prax is-t he ory-pr ax is m od el of t he ology t hat is ro ote d in p o pu lar m ove m en ts for c h an ge , a s
op po se d t o s imp ly b eing re le g ate d t o th e st at us of an ac a de m ic t he ory In sp it e of th ese
ach iev e me nts , ho wev er, lib era tion t he ology h as face d a cr is is in rec en t ye ars w hic h h as le d
m any of t hos e wh o wo uld c all th e mse lve s liber a tio n th eo lo g ia ns to dr ift a way fr om t he fir st
par a dig m t ow ar d t he fo urt h, intercultural/interreligious-radical democratic paradigm o f bib lic a l st ud ie s. 13 Ja mes C on e, in t he pr ef ace to t he 1 99 7 ed it io n of h is 1 97 5 work God of
the Oppressed, he lp fu lly d escrib es t h e n at ure of th is cr is is:
I st ill r eg ar d t he Bib le as a n im port a nt s ourc e o f my th eo lo gic a l re flect io ns, b ut no t
the st art in g po int. T he b lack ex per ie nce a nd t he B ib le t og et her in dialect ica l te ns io n
serve as my p o in t o f de par ture to d ay an d y est er day . T he or der is sign if ic an t. I am black firs t an d everyt h in g els e c o mes a fter th at T his me an s t ha t I re ad t he B ible thro ug h th e le ns of a b lack tra d it io n o f s trug g le a nd n ot as th e ob jec tiv e W ord of God W h en w e r eco gn ize t he limit s of t h e B ib le, we ca n also r eco gn iz e t he pro ble m atic ch ar acter of a bs olut izing a ny th eo lo gic al cla im, inclu d in g b lack the o lo gy’s co nt en tion t hat t he B ib lic al Go d is t h e lib era tor of th e op pr esse d. I firs t m ad e t h at c la im in t he co ntex t o f t he b lack fr ee d om mov e me nt of th e 19 6 0s an d in op po sit ion to a w h ite rac ist ch urch a nd t heo log ic al es ta b lis h me nt I w as c o nvince d
12 Se e, f or exa m p le, Gust avo Gut ierr ez’s A Theology of Liberation ( Maryk no ll: Or b is, 1 9 73) an d J a mes Co n e’s A Black Theology of Liberation, ( Maryk no ll: Or b is, 1 9 86).
13 In a dd it io n to Co ne , t h is cr it icis m of liber at io n t h eo lo gy is discuss ed in R S Su g irt har aja h, ed. , Voices from the Margins. Interpreting the Bible in the Third World (R ev. an d Ex pa n de d 3rd Ed it io n; Maryk no ll: Or b is B ooks , 20 0 6), 3-6 .
th at t h e Go d of t h e B ib le w as o n t he s id e o f t he op pre sse d blacks in t h eir stru gg le f or
just ic e an d ag a ins t wh it e o p pre ssors W h ile I st ill ho ld t hat co nvic tion , I must wr est le
no w with co ntr ary B ib lica l c la ims a nd st ories, es pec ia lly t he “tex ts of terror” t ha t
fe min ist th eo lo g ia n P hyllis Tr ible ha s c alle d to o ur a tte nt io n. 14
In s h ort, it se e ms th at th ere w ere tim es th at th e pro ph et ic ed ge of liber at io n t h eo lo gy
ca me at th e c ost of p ass ing over t he v ar iety o f im ag es, p ow er dyn a mic s an d id eo lo g ies a t
work in t he Bib le L iber at io n t h eo lo gia ns oft en c hos e t o focu s o n th e t exts th at w ere us efu l
for t he m , with out ut iliz in g a cr it ica l a na lys is to a d dress w hy so me tex ts wer e eleva te d an d
oth ers wer e n’t ; t h is gav e lib era tion t heo logy at leas t t he a p pe ara nce o f lack in g inte gr ity.
Mor eov er, if it d id re fra in fr o m critic a lly tre at ing o r jus t ig nor ing less lib era tiv e t exts , o n e
pers on ’s g oo d ne ws of lib era tio n t he ology mig ht tur n int o a not her p erso n ’s b ad n ews o f
op pre ssion , a dyn a mic t ha t has b ee n h ig h ligh te d in d iscus sion s t h at C on e m en tion s
bet w ee n, for exa m p le , f e minists a nd b lack t he olog ia ns . 15 In ord er t o m aint ain th e s h arp
ed ge of h is pro p he tic v o ice, Co ne h ims elf pro ble m at ize d h is co m m it me nt to t he firs t
par a dig m an d e mbr ace d a m eth o d t ha t re so na t es mor e c le arly w it h th e f ourt h p ara dig m
on e t ha t be gins w it h t h e ex per ienc e o f op pre ssion 16 T hou g h C on e c on tinu es t o r et ain m any of t h e co m m it me nt s o f t he f irst p ara d ig m, it is do ubt fu l t h at t h is pro p het ic ed ge ca n de m a nd
the a tte nt io n of as w ide a v ariety of C hris tia ns a s h is prev ious a ppr o ach, u nd erscor ing th e
14 Ja me s C on e, God of the Oppressed ( M arykn oll: Or bis , 19 9 7), x i.
15 Se e, f or exa m p le, “L ib er atio n T he ology a n d t he Exo dus , ” Reflections 8 6: 1 ( wint er-s pring , 19 9 1): 2-1 2 (r epr inte d in Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, e d. A lic e O gd e n Be llis an d J oe l S K a m insky , eds ( At lan ta: S ociety of B iblic al L iter at ure, 2 0 00) , 21 5- 30), w h ich d ea ls w it h t he us e o f Exo dus in liber at io n t h eo lo gy narr at ives a n d t he ext e nt to wh ic h t hey g lo ss over imp ort an t po ints th at re sult in a nd leav e m any p eo p le st ill v ery op pre sse d 16 It s h ou ld b e not ed t ha t w h en I use p hra ses suc h as “ be gins w it h,” th is is n ot m ea nt to b e take n in a f ou nd at io n alist se ns e as a giv en t ha t is n ot its e lf m ea nt to u nd erg o critic a l an a lysis. W h ile s o me w it hin th es e par ad ig ms u n ders ta nd t he ir s tart ing p oint fo un d at io na lly, it c an b e un ders to od sim p ly as a plac e fr o m w h ich t o be gin a sp ira lin g cr it ica l a na lys is.
ne ed for a n op en e ng a ge m en t w it h ide olog ica l c rit iqu e within t he fr a me work of th e firs t par a dig m
c. Scriptural Reasoning
“Scriptur a l R eas o ning” is a n ot her exa m p le of th e f irst p ara d ig m at w ork in t he
aca de my to d ay. I ts s it ua tion f ir mly w it hin th at p a rad ig m is a p par e nt in t he fir st m axim of
Scriptur al Re as on ing, acc ord ing to Dav id F ord : practitioners must acknowledge the sacredness and authoritativeness of the scriptures of a tradition for those within that tradition 17 St eve n K e p nes furt h erm ore d escrib es Scriptur al Re as on ing as a pr act ice w hic h self-co nsciou sly se eks t he “d iv in e s p irit” a t work in t he r ea d in g of th e scr ip ture s 18 Des p ite its att en tion to t he co m mit me nts of t he fir st par a dig m, Script ura l R ea so nin g is dist inct ive in it s
in terf a it h me th od ology . T h is div erse , dia lo gic al o rie nt at io n allo ws Script ura l R e aso nin g t o
be gin to a ddr ess th e s hor tco m in gs of e arlier ma nifes ta tions o f t he f irst p ara d ig m, b ut no t with out its ow n s hor tco m in gs.
Scriptur al Re as on ing is mos t succ inctly d ef in ed by K e pn es as “ a pr act ice of gro up
rea din g o f t he script ures of Ju da is m, C hris tia nity , a nd Is la m t ha t bu ilds soc ia lity a mo n g its
prac tit ion ers an d r ele ases so urces o f re as on , co m pas sion , an d div ine sp ir it for he a lin g o ur
sep ar ate co m mu n it ies a nd f or re p air of t he wor ld ” 19 Scriptur a l Re as on ing t hus r eco gn iz es
the irr ed ucib le p ow er o f scr ip tur es t o brin g c ha n ge in s ociety by v irtu e of th eir b e in g s o
de ep ly f or ma tiv e in t he ide nt ity a nd lives o f ma n y pe o ple A t t he s am e tim e, Scriptur a l
Reas o ning ’s int erf ait h c h arac ter de m a nds t ha t a tte nt io n be p a id to th e obv io us b arriers t o
17 Dav id For d a nd C.C . Peck no ld , eds ., The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning (Oxf ord: B lack we ll, 2 00 6), 5
18 Ib id., 2 3.
19 Ib id., 2 3.
such a d ia lo gu e, b arriers r oot e d in th e p artic ular ize d co m m it m en ts of t h ose w ho f all with in
the f irst religious-the*logical-scriptural paradigm Th is r eco gn it ion pr o mp ts Scr iptur al
Reas o ning t o ar gu e s tre nu ous ly f or t he va lu e of see in g th e f irst p ar ad igm pr im arily in t erm s of practice as op p ose d t o t h eory, a pr act ice th at can “o nly b e k no wn in its p erf or ma nce . ” 20
B eca use it se eks to e ng ag e pe o ple wh o s imu lt a ne ous ly be lieve in th e “tr ut h” o f t he ir
resp ect ive script ures, Scr ip tur al Re aso n in g c an not b eg in by art icu lat ing a t heor et ica l
“com m on gr ou nd ” T his has b ee n a s h ortco m ing of inter fa it h dia lo gu e t h at tr ies t o brus h
over t h e d ee p-s ea te d differ enc es a nd inst e ad b uild sh a llow co nse ns us 21 Accord ing to
Nic ho la s A da ms ,
Scriptur al re aso n in g is a pr act ice w hic h inv it es t he oret ic al d escript io n, b eca us e it is so in tere st in g, b ut ho wev er s op h ist ica te d s uch t he oret ic al d escript io n b eco me s it will nev er a m ou nt to th e “ gro un din g” o f scr ip tur al re aso n in g Ra th er, on e c an b e s at isf ied with th e “f act” of scr ipt ura l r ea so nin g, a nd o nly s ubs eq ue nt ly att e mp t t o m ake se nse of it. 22
On acco un t o f t h is, Scriptur a l R eas o ning is desc rib ed a s “risky”23 in it s re fus al t o acc e pt t h e
see m in g ly “o bv iou s” f act th at t hat se e in g t h e scr ip ture s as s acre d a nd au th orita tiv e mus t
le ad to inco m m en sur ab ility I t is in te nt o n ins te a d nav ig at ing a “ th ird w ay” in t he t hick bru sh
bet w ee n wh at it ca lls “ an ti- m od ern re lig iou s f un da m en ta lis m” an d “ mo d ern lib era lis m ” 24
To nav ig at e th is a pp are nt te ns io n, Scr ipt ura l R e aso n in g prac tic es w hat Ad a ms c a lls
a “ ‘tak ing- as-tr ue ’ me ta p hys ic” t ha t ackn ow le d g es t he ide nt ity- for m in g an d r at io n ally-g uid in g
role t ha t be lief s a n d assu m pt io ns p lay in th e wa y ind ividu a ls c om e to k no w th eir o wn a n d
oth ers ’ scr ip tur es, bu t wh ic h st ill ins ists o n ho lding th es e be liefs a n d assu m pt io ns as
20 Ib id , 2 6
21 Ib id., 2 8-9 .
22 Ib id , 4 4
23Ib id ., v ii.
24 Ib id., 2 5.
hyp ot hes es th at a llo w ro o m f or r ece pt ivity a n d r evis io n 25 “ W hat is in te nd ed h ere,” h e writes ,
“is a u sef ul co ntr ast b et we en hy po th es is an d gu ara nt ee T his me an s t h at m em b ers of
differ en t tr ad it ions may d iscus s an d le ar n fr o m e ach ot her ’s ch ains of re as on in g with ou t
put ting a n e nd to d ia lo gu e in a dv anc e bec aus e on e ‘kn ows ’ th at suc h disc uss io n is fut ile.” 26
It is by v irtu e of t h is m ove to war d iro n ic e n ga ge me nt w it h no tion s o f aut hor ity a nd
trut h t ha t Scr iptur al Re as on ing c a n acco m plis h on e o f its m ost im por ta nt g oa ls: mak ing
“dee p r e aso n in gs” or “s ett le d p att erns o f int er pr eta tion” p ub lic
Scriptur al re aso n in g is a m od e l f or mak ing d ee p rea so nin gs pu blic b eca use it f ost ers disc uss io n be tw ee n m e mb ers of d iff ere nt r eligio us tr ad it io ns w it h re sp ect to th e ir mo st imp ort a nt s acre d texts . Prec is ely b eca use it is n ot prim ar ily or ie nt ed to par tic ular agr ee m en ts or o utco m es th at ar e cle a rly id en tif ied in adv a nce of stu dy, it off ers a re sourc e f or discov ering d ee p r ea so nin gs in w ays th at ar e not su b ject to sever e press ures o f t ime or ot her c on str aints 27
By fu nct io nin g in th is o pe n-e n de d ma n ner, Scr ip tura l R ea so nin g ho pes t o ac h iev e t he g oa l
of en ge n der in g fr ien ds hip a nd r elat ions h ip b ef or e a gre e me nt , or sim p ly in s pit e of
dis a gre em e nt; it h o pes to a llo w pe op le t o s ee a nd , in so m e s ens e, un d erst an d eac h ot her
prior t o any kin d o f co ns en sus, a n d cer ta inly a p art fro m any f orce d co ns ens us 28 At th e
sa me t im e, Script ura l R ea so nin g do es not av o id et hic a l issu es. K ep ne s c alls Script ura l
Reas o ning “pr im arily a f or m of et hics , ” o n e t ha t is m ot iva te d by glob a l aw are n ess of
suff ering a n d wh ich se es th is suf fer in g as b est a ddr esse d by th e k in d of d ia lo gu e ge are d
tow ar d fr ie nd sh ip t h at Scr iptur a l Re as on ing e nc oura ge s 29
It is c le ar, I t h ink, t ha t Scr ip tur al Re as on ing h as m ad e imp ort an t str id es to w ards
25 Ib id , 4 5
26 Ib id., 4 5-6 .
27 Ib id , 5 6
28 Ib id., 2 6.
29 Ib id., 2 8.
m ap p in g out a w ay f or t h e f irst p ara d ig m to fu nc tio n r igoro us ly an d u sef ully in an ac ad e my
do m in at ed by th e ot her thr ee p ar ad ig ms I ts insiste nce on t he im por ta nce of h igh lig ht in g t h e
varia bility of, n ot on ly de ep re as on in g, b ut a lso t he w ay t he n ot io ns of “trut h” a nd “ au th ority”
the m se lves ar e not g ive n, pr ovide s imp ort an t m eth od o lo gic a l t oo ls for c ollab ora tio n t ha t
seeks to str ug gle with a nd b e nef it fro m int erd isc iplinary co ncer ns an d sourc es of
kno wled ge . A da ms ’ d iscus sion of “t aking- as-tr u e” hy p oth es es, for ex a mp le , is a nec ess ary
ste p t ow ar d e nv isio ning t he w ay a f irst p ar ad ig m ca n o p erat e in t he ac ad e my as we ll as t he
church T h is allows it t o ke e p its c o m mit me nts t o a ut hor ity w it hou t allo w in g t h ose
com m it m en ts t o c los e it of f, thu s prov id ing a cr it ical a nd co lla bor at ive link b et we en d if fere nt
me th od s an d are na s
It is les s c le ar, ho wev er, th at Script ura l R e aso n ing ’s r elat ive ly laissez-faire int erfa it h
me th od o lo gy is t he mos t e ff ectiv e m ea ns to acc om p lish th es e imp ort an t co lla bor at ive g oa ls .
For ex a m ple, th e aut h ors wh o s up p ort t h is m et h od e mp h as ize th e imp ort anc e of th e
con nect ion b et we en Script ura l R ea so nin g an d c reat ing a b ett er wor ld , as we ll a s t he
imp ort anc e of m akin g d ee p r ea so nin gs pu b lic. A t ot her t imes , ho wev er, t h ey s ee m to fo llo w
liber at io n th eo lo gy into a pr ob le mat ic ally flat r e a ding o f scr ip ture , as exe m plif ie d in t his
quo te by K e p nes :
W e s ee p ara lle ls in o ur scr iptur al tr ad it io ns w hic h als o gre w out of a se ns e o f t h e mor a l, s p iritu al, an d m ater ial co lla pse o f t he w or ld as d escr ib ed in Ge n esis, in t he
Gosp els, an d in t he Qur ’an W e d o no t t ake t hes e scr ip tura l ass ess m en ts as pro ph es ies o f o ur co nt e mp or ary pr ed ic a me nt or simp le portr a its of our co nte m p orary wor ld , but as s ig ns th at our script ures ar e f un d a me nt a lly co ncer ne d with th e wor ldly rea lities of hu m a n su ff ering a n d ce ntr ally foc use d o n a ddr ess in g t h at suff er in g. 30
30 Ib id., 2 8.
Th is s ee ms to pr esu p po se th at th e s tru gg le b et we en d ee p r eas on ing s at work in t he
aca de m ic prac tition ers of th e differ e nt r elig ions will be en ou g h t o s imp ly “ dra w out” t he
“fun da m e nta lly” liber at ive mes sa ge of t he script ures More over , t he f act t h at Script ura l
Reas o ning h a pp e ns a mo ng p eo p le fro m th e s a me e lite soc ial m ilieu th e p artic ipa nt s ar e
prim arily ac ad e mics or c hurc h le a ders 31 se e ms t o b e a n in her en t barr ier to t he p ote nt ial of
disc uss io n a lo ne to m ak e d ee p r ea so nin gs pu b lic. P eo p le w ho sh are s imilar p os it io ns of
po wer w ill sh are so m e de ep re aso n in gs de sp it e relig io us d iff ere nces T her ef ore, it s ee ms th at if Script ura l R ea so nin g d oe s not ex plic it ly a do pt a cr it ica l a na lys is c a pa b le of cr it iq uin g
not o nly t exts a nd h ist ories of int erpr et atio ns, bu t a ls o t he soc ial loca tion a nd a ssu m pt io ns of t h e ac a de m ic co nver sa tion itse lf , t he pr act ice m ay be in da ng er r eifying t he v ie w th at t he
first p ar ad ig m is s om e ho w inc a pa b le of r e ally en ga gin g with th e cr it ica l et hos of b iblic al stud ies. A lt ho ug h p art icipa nt s are enc our ag ed t o br ing t he ir critic a l le nse s t o disc uss io ns of
the tex t, if t his st ep is not se lf-c onsc ious ly bu ilt in t o t he met h od ology of t he fir st p ara dig m, it is po ssib le a nd like ly th at d ee p c olla b ora tion w it h t he ot h er par ad igm s will be limite d, an d
th at t h e f irst p ar ad ig m w ill c o ntinu e to sp eak a f un da m en ta lly d if fer ent la ng ua ge t ha n t h e
oth er par a dig ms, re m ain in g in a d if fere nt d isc ip linary sp h ere, as w e ll as t he o n mar g ins o f
the p ub lic are na of a re- env is io ne d b ib lic a l s tud ies Th e imp ort an t ach iev e me nts a nd in sigh ts of Scriptur a l R eas o ning must b e c ou ple d wit h a m et ho d t h at incor por ate s s o me k ind of cr it ica l an a lys is. In t he n ext s ect io n, I will tur n to t he critic a l me th od of t he fo urth par a dig m, out lin e it, a n d d isc uss ho w it re la tes t o t he fir st p ara dig m an d w ha t is at stak e in its use . 31 Ib id., 2 4.
2. Ideology Criticism and the First Paradigm: What Is At Stake?
a. What is ideology criticism?
Elis a bet h Sch üss ler Fiore nz a h as su gg est ed t h at th e f ourt h p ara dig m ’s in ter na l
me th od o f kyriarc ha l cr it iq ue m ay ad d it io na lly f o ster c ollab ora tion b et we en a ll t he p ar ad ig m s
by c allin g in to qu est io n th eir a ssu m pt io ns to war d o b ject iv ity. A kyriarc ha l an a lyt ic is a
spec if ic k in d of ide olog ic al crit ic is m “ K yriarc hy” refers to ide o lo gies th at inscr ib e any kind o f
m ast er/lord /ru ler-s lave/ serv an t/ru le d s truct ure a s g ive n, r e pro duc in g t he m a t ev ery lev el of
society 32 Soc ie ty as we kn ow it t od ay is, in m any resp ects , s ha p ed like a kyr iarch al
pyra m id , an d th e t ask of th e f our th p ara d ig m is t o carv e out a r a dic a l d e mocr at ic s p ace
with in t ha t pyra m id t ha t ch a lle ng es its as su me d stat us as “ n orm a l” or “n at ura l.” Th e f ourt h
par a dig m co nfr on ts th e o th er par a dig ms w it h t h e lik elih oo d th at th e ir d ee p r ea so nin gs are
sh ap ed n ot by “ trut h” but by t he kyr iarch al pyr a m id, a n d asks th e m t o co ns ider ho w th ey
m ig ht o per ate if t he ir m et ho do lo g ies ar e re- sh ap ed in a r ad ica l de m ocra tic fa sh io n T hos e
wh o are c o nvince d t h at th e f irst p ar ad ig m is im p orta nt , an d t h at s uch co lla bor at io n is eq ua lly
imp ort an t, s h ou ld th ere fore co ns id er t he n at ure of id eo lo g ica l cr it icis m a n d, in p art icu lar, its
imp act o n t he f irst p ara dig m.
The Postmodern Bible o pe ns its disc uss io n of id eo lo gic a l critic is m w it h t his bro ad def inition :
For its p art, ide olo gic al critic is m exp os es t hre e d ime ns io ns of th e s trug g le pr ese nt in the pr od uct io n of m ea n in g: it reve a ls th e t en siv e relat io n b etw ee n th e pro duct ion of me a nin g an d la n gu ag e; it h ig h ligh ts th e mu lt iple d isco urses o per at ing w it hin t h e t ext; an d it lays b are th e co m p lex n atur e of po w er re lat io ns th at pr oduc e t exts , co ns truct
32 Kyriarc hy is descr ibe d in Sch üss ler Fiore nz a, Rhetoric and Ethic, p. 1 79.
the ins tit ut io na l c o ntex ts of t exts a n d t he ir r ece p tio n, a n d a ff ect r ea ders o f t hos e text s
in t he ir part icu lar s ocia l loc at io ns 33
Ther e are m a ny f or ms of ideo log ica l cr it icis m discusse d in t he ch a pter As th e aut h ors put it,
“Ide olo gic al critic is m is n ot on e t h in g, o ne w ay o f re ad ing; it is le g io n ” 34 Oft en , h o wever ,
the se for ms a tte m pt to h ig h lig ht id eo log ies a t w ork in th e t ext for th e pur pos e of af fir m in g
so me a nd re ject ing ot her s. 35 Th is c aco p ho ny of v oic es u n der th e u m br ella o f id eo lo gic a l
critic is m pr o mp ts t h e f ollo w in g s u m mary at t he c los e of th e c ha pt er: “T hu s, in t he f in al
an a lysis, id eo log ica l cr it icis m is a lim it ed, re duct ion ist ter m for a m uch lar ger c on text of
cult ura l r elat io ns a nd pr oces ses I de olog ic al crit icis m is r es ist in g, r up tur ed, inco m p le te,
cha ot ic, y et im ag in at ive ” 36 The a ut hors h ere ex press a t o ne of r e alis m, or p erh ap s
pes sim is m, over ide o lo gic a l critic is m ’s po te nt ia l to y ie ld e it her viab le rec on struct ions o ut of
conf lict or a t elos c o mp ar ab le t o t he tra nsc en de nt n arrat ive s o f ear lier B iblic al
in ter pret at io ns . 37 The a m b iva le nce of t his ch a pt er po in ts to a ta ng ible frustr at io n c onc ern ing
a co h ere nt en d- po in t o f t he re la tiv ely n ew int erpr etiv e le ns of ide ology critic is m. Th is , in my
vie w, on ly sign a ls th e imp ort anc e o f t ak in g id eo log ica l cr it icism ser ious ly as a way to
ap pro ac h t he “o bviou s” re ad ing of t he text w it h s usp icio n In ot her w ord s, id eo lo g ica l
critic is m yields a pro lif erat ion of re ad ings ; t h is f a ct a lo ne is in dic at ive o f its im port a nce.
Tho se w ho w an t t o v ie w t he B ib le a s s acre d hav e a h ug e s tak e in inve stig at in g why t her e
can be s o m any d iff ere nt re ad in gs a nd w h at th o se re a din gs accomplish If w e ar e go ing to
33 E liz a be th A C ast e lli, St ep he n D M oor e, G arry Ph illips a nd Re gin a M Sch w artz, ed s , The Postmodern Bible (N ew H ave n: Y a le U niv e rsity Pr ess, 1 9 95) , 27 3
34 Ib id., 2 80 .
35 Th is ge n era l k in d of ide olog ica l cr it icis m is ap p are nt in, for exa m p le, t he d iscus sion of liber at io n h erm e neu tics (p p. 2 8 0-2 9 3) a n d m ate ria list r ea d in gs ( p p. 2 93- 30 1) th at h ig h lig ht certa in narr at ives ov er a n d ag a ins t o th ers to pr o mo te a se lf-co nsc io us id eo logy
36 Ib id., 3 06 .
37 Ib id., 3 06- 7.
pers ist in a pp ly in g b ib lica l in sigh t t o s ociety, t he div ersity of bib lic a l s tud ies de m an ds th at w e
mus t giv e att en tion t o t he so urces of d ivers ity in the tex t its elf, as w ell as to th e div ers ity of
its r e ad ers an d th e id eo lo gies th ey brin g t o t h e t ext
Schüs sler F ior e nza ’s fe m in ist critic al met h od g iv es att en tion t he r o le of ide ology in
the int erpr et er as we ll a s t he tex t, a nd th us m ov es aw ay fro m t h ose w ho u nd erst an d
id eo lo g ica l cr it icis m as s imp ly discer nin g var iou s ide olog ies at work in th e t ext a nd to war d
vie win g id eo lo gic a l cr itic is m as a n a ppr oac h to inter pre ta tion S h e wr it es:
Rea din g par ad ig ms de ter m in e t he se lec tio n o f me th od s an d prov id e t h e int er pret ive fra me work s an d t he ore tic a l pers pec tiv es of r ea d in g. Th ey org an iz e t he pr act ice of rea din g ins of ar as t h ey re late tex ts, re ad ers, a n d co nt ext to on e a not her in sp ecific ways . B ot h prof ess io n al a nd n o npr ofe ss io na l r e ad ers dra w on t he “ fra m e of me a nin g” a n d t he co nt extu aliz at io n prov id ed by the sy m bo lic-r elig ious c o nstruc tion s of s ocia l-cu ltur al w orlds , w h ich t hey usu a lly sh ar e, of t h e t exts th ey r ea d He nce scho lars mu st bec o me c o nscious of a n d ex p lic a te t he re ad ing fr am e works, “le nses , ” or “ey eg lasse s” wit h w hic h th ey ap pro ac h B ib lic al tex ts. 38
In th is c o mpr e he nsiv e p ictur e o f in ter pret at io n, ide ology fu nct io ns as th at w h ich a p pe ars t o
be “c o m mo n s e nse” b ut is, in f act , a s ocia lly d et erm ine d s et of d isco urses t ha t f or m
sub jec ts, b eco m in g de ep ly inter n alize d a nd th us acce pt ed — so m et hin g akin t o, b ut m ore
com pre h ens iv e t ha n, Scr ip tura l Re aso n in g’s not io n of “ de ep re aso n in g.” Qu ot in g R ose m ary
He nn essy, Sc hüss ler F ior enz a c ont inu es:
“To s ay t h at ideo logy is a mat er ia l f orce in th at it (re)pr od uces w h at c ou nts as re ality sug ges ts t h at ot her m at eria l f orces , bo th eco n o m ic a n d po litic a l, are n ot m ere ly
reflect ed in id eo lo gy bu t t ha t t hey t oo are a t le as t in p art s h ap ed by ide olo gy.” S uch a
38 Sch üss ler Fiore nza , Rhetoric, 1 49- 15 0.
conc ept o f id eo lo gy s eeks to corr ect e mp ir icis t-p ositiv ist u nd erst an d in gs of “re ality”
as outs ide of d isco urse 39
The lat ter p art of th is ar gu me nt clear ly imp ing es no t on ly u p on th e four th , but a ls o t he f irst,
seco nd , an d t h ird p ara d ig ms T he f irst p ara d ig m , for ex a mp le, u tilizes a p os it ivis tic n ot io n of
em p iric a l, ob jectiv e, v a lu eless “r ea lity” wh e n it a rgue s f or o n e-d ime ns io na l un der sta n din gs
of t h e pro per ord er of life or soc iety b as ed u po n the a p par en t dic tat e of scriptur e as “G od ’s
W ord . ” T he sec on d critical-scientific-modern paradigm like w ise a ssu me s t he o b ject iv ity of
the res ults of its sc ie nt if ic me th od as rev ea lin g t he p la in “tr uth” a b out th e “r ea lity” of t h e
scrip tur al tex t Not a ble s tra n ds of t h e t hir d cultural-hermeneutic-postmodern paradigm
similarly ret a in a flat view o f t he tex t as eit h er a clas sic t hat ret a in s t he o ne me an ing it h a d
at th e t ime of its aut h orsh ip, or a t ext w it h o n ly t he m ea n in g th e re a der g ives it A ll o f t hes e
par a dig ms hav e occas ion to re-t h ink th e ir pr esu pp os it io ns w he n f ace d w ith t he stro n g
sug ges tion t ha t t he ir v ie w of r ea lity m ay be a n im plic it c ho ice as o p pos ed to tru th itse lf, t ha t
the ir no tio n o f “o bv iou s” m ay b e c on d it io ne d by t he ir env iro n me nt, a n d t h at t h e o n ly us ef ul
not ion of re ality m ust f ace th e m any ide olog ies, disc ours es, a n d co nt exts at w ork in t he text
an d its int erpr et at io n
The ch arg e of “ be g ging t he qu est ion” is a sig nifican t o ne f or a ny syst em o f t ho ug ht
th at pur por ts t o be co m pe lling , an d t h is is th e c h arg e lev eled at a ll not ions o f re a lity ak in t o
tho se th at try t o de fe nd ch allen ge s t o t he b lank e t “a uth or ity” of scr iptur e or t he “ trut h” of th e
gos pe l It is o ne t hing t o mak e on e’s u n derst a nd in g of th ese ter m s ex p lic it a nd o per at e with
the u nd erst a nd in g th at o ne h as c hos e n t ha t u n d erst an din g f or any n u mb er o f r eas on s; it is
qu ite a no th er t o act like o ne ’s un ders ta n ding of t hes e t er ms is g ive n or o bv iou s. T h at, t he
fourt h p ara dig m wo uld s ay, is id eo lo gy at work . Th is is ind ee d a ch a lle ng e t o t he f irst
par a dig m t h at is de fine d by its view o f t he Bib le as s acre d or aut hor it at ive ; it do es no t hav e
to be a n exis te nt ia l c h alle n ge to th e firs t par ad ig m, h ow ever, b ut r at her a n op p ortu n ity t o
th ink thr ou gh w h at we me an w he n we us e t h ese ter ms If b ot h t h e t ext an d our n ot io ns of
trut h a n d aut hor ity ar e rev ea led as p olyv a le nt a nd d iscurs iv e, ho w mu st th e t he ory an d
me th od o f t he fir st p ara dig m be rev ise d ?
b. Re-envisioning Truth and Authority
I sh ou ld ex p la in a t t h is po int w hy I h ave b ee n r ef ere ncing tru th a nd a ut hor ity in
conc ert with e ach ot h er, an d w hy I w ill c on tinu e to do so in t he sec tion s t h at f o llow I se e t he
two ter m s as in tim at ely co nn ecte d, p erh a ps inse par a ble, b ecau se th e lo g ic o f aut hor ity is
ba se d u po n th e s en se in wh ic h t he a ut hor it ativ e sourc e is c on nec te d t o tr ut h. In a
hierarc h ica l m od el, a ut hor ity is es ta b lis h ed by o ne ’s p lac e in t he fix ed or der, w h ich is a ls o
tho ug ht of a s t he “tru e” or der of re ality I n a m or e pr a g ma tic m od e l o f t he w ay trut h is
purs ue d, aut h ority w ill d eriv e fr o m on e’s a b ility t o p art ic ip at e mor e use fu lly a nd
colla b orat iv ely in t he p ursu it of tru th, a n d will t hu s m a in ta in a mor e t en uo us an d le ss f ix ed
stat us Th e d iscuss ions o n id eo lo g ies of tru th t h at fo llow w ill t hus h ave im plic at io ns on
not ions of a ut hor ity, a n d aut hor ity is pr ecise ly w ha t mus t be d irect ly exa m ine d an d
reco nce ive d in or der for th e f irst p ar ad ig m t o be op en ed to co lla bor at io n, a nd , in tur n, to
creat e t h e poss ibility for gre at er co lla b orat ion b e twe e n ch urch a nd ac a de my.
Scriptur al Re as on ing, a s we sa w, p oint ed to t he nec ess ity of r e-e nvision ing trut h a nd
aut hor ity in its ins ist enc e u p on a n op e n-e nd ed me th od o lo gy an d its us e o f t he “t aking a s
true” m et ap hys ic t h at off ers no st a nd ard of pr oo f for th e v erac ity of it s re sults Th e r esu lts ,
its pr op on e nts ar gue , are th e pro of its e lf 40 A lt h ou gh , t o a gr e at exte nt , Scr ip tur al Re as on in g
do es not critic a lly e ng ag e id eo lo gy, it d oe s rec o gn ize t hat tru th a nd a ut hor ity are t he st icking
po in ts in t he p ole mic s bet w ee n t he f irst p ara d ig m a nd th e ot her p ara dig ms, a n d t h at t h ese
mus t be a ddr ess ed in ord er f or any rece pt iv ity t o co lla bor at io n to b e poss ible. Th e firs t
par a dig m is, by de fin it io n, de d ica te d t o t he view th at t h e B ib le is aut hor it at ive , s acre d, a nd, at th e very lea st, co nt ains th e W ord of Go d. Oft en, h ow ever , t h is v ie w ha s tr an slat ed to t he
vie w (cer ta inly n ot lim it ed t o t he f irst p ara dig m) t ha t tru th is s o me ho w in t he text , prov id ed
we a ppr o ach th at tex t wit h th e r ig ht a m ou nt of r esp ect, p iety, c ultur al kn ow le d ge, lingu is tic
kno wled ge , or ev en cour a ge to se e its lit era l tr ut h Th is, in its elf, is a n id eo log ica l no tion o f
trut h o ne t ha t is inc ulc at ed in muc h of W es ter n th ou gh t, an d on e th at int erpr eter s
the m se lves br ing to th e text a nd in tur n rec eiv e f rom t he text I n w hat f ollo ws , I w ill arg ue
th at t h is v ie w of trut h is ide olog ic al a nd lea ds un nec ess arily t o fa ls e o b ject iv ity, d istr ust, a n d
eve n vio le nce, a n d t h at, in ord er f or t he f irst p ar ad ig m to t ake up a s pot in th e de m ocrat ic
eth os of b iblica l stu dies, it will nee d to c o nsider a mor e de m ocrat ic no tio n o f tr uth .
Class icis t an d liter ary cr it ic Pa ge Du B ois ha s wr itte n ab out t his id eo lo gy of tr ut h at
le ng th Exa m ining b ot h t h e e ty mo lo gy o f t h e Gre ek w ord for tru th , aletheia w h ich lit era lly
me a ns th e act of no t ( a) f org ett ing ( lethe) 41 an d t he a ncien t Gre ek prac tic e o f t ortur ing
slaves ( i e , t he m as ter ’s s urro ga te b od ie s) a s a ju dic ia l m ea ns of extr act ing trut h 42 sh e
arg ues th at o ur in her it ed, d o min an t W est ern n ot io n of “tr ut h” as s o met h in g h id de n an d
outs ide of ours e lves th at must b e “ dis-cover ed” is d ee ply a n d d a ng ero usly inf or me d by
the se h ist ories a nd r oo t me ta p hors .
40 For d an d Peck no ld, 4 4
41 P ag e D u Bo is, Torture and Truth (N ew York: Ro utled ge , 19 9 1), 75- 7.
42 Ib id., 6 3-8 .
Does tru th as et er na lly loca te d els e wh ere, e it her h id de n in t he b ody , or h id d en in t he
eart h, or h id de n inside or b eyo nd h u ma n exis te nce, in so me re alm in access ible t o
ord in ary c onsc ious nes s, le a d by s o me tort urou s p at h t o t he n eces sity f or t ortur e ?
…T he w ord a- let h eia s ee m s t o c arry w it h in it su pp ort for th e v ie w of h id de n tr ut h, of
trut h brou g ht u p fro m th e de pt hs. 43
She ar gu es furt her th at t his im a ge of th e proc es s of p ullin g f ort h t h e tru th fro m so m e
priv ile ge d ex ter na l sourc e ha s ma n if est ed it se lf in o ur in te llectu a l prac tic es, p oint ing to
ten de nc ies in P la to ’s p hilo so p hic al met h od: “T h oug h it pr ete n ds to p hilo so ph ic al o bject ivity, it r eco gn ize s an d aff ir ms th at w h at is at st ake in arg um e nt is th e an n ih ila tion of o ne ’s
op po ne nt in th e agon [ de ba te] T ortur e an d stru gg le h ere b eco me e m b le m at ic a n d
en ig m at ic f igure s f or ph ilos op h ica l lab or ” 44 Th is k ind of tru th, s he wr ite s, “ de n ies th e
pro duct io n of trut h in t ime a nd s pac e, pro duc ing the ot h er wh o k no ws, th e p hilo so ph ic al op po ne nt a s we ll as t he slave w ho mus t be tre at ed w it h vio le nce so th at t he trut h c an b e
dis-c over ed . ” 45
Such a n u n ders ta nd ing of t his d ee p ly in scribe d not ion of trut h m ay off er in sigh t in to
the co m pe tit iv e par ad ig m s hifts of b iblica l stu die s, inc lu ding t he p ole mic a l st a nce b et we en
the f irst a nd t he ot her ac ad e mic p ar ad ig m s t ha t pers ist t od ay Ho wev er, as Du B ois asks,
“W hy s ho uld we co nstr uct our m od el of d isc over y as a n alle g ory o f f orce a nd p a in ?”, lat er
not ing d e mocr acy a s t he “log ic al a lt ern at ive to t he wr itt en la w, t ort ure, p atr iarc hy, t he
writte n, ide a lis t me ta p hysic s.” 46 Th ou gh d em ocr a cy its e lf ha s e m p loy ed th e id eo log ica l
un derst a nd ing of tru th in t er ms of tort ure, “t he lo gic of d e mocr acy, t h e not io n of e qu ality a nd
equ a l po wer a m on g m em b ers of c o m mu nity , c a n pro duce a n ever- exp a nd in g de fin it io n o f
43 Ib id., 1 03 .
44 Ib id , 1 17
45 Ib id., 1 26 .
46 Ib id., 1 22 .
com m un ity , ”47 g iv in g op por tu nity t o co ns truct a nd em p loy a m ore se lf- aw ar e an d
consc ie nt io us no tion o f tru th , on e t h at lo oks for t ruth in c on tinu al o pe n nes s ins te ad of
singu lar o bs ess io n
Such a n id eo lo gy of trut h is n ot r estr icte d to th e anc ie nt w orld. P h iloso p her N ao m i
Sche m a n argu es th at a sim ilar ide olog ic al u nd er sta nd ing of tru th as t he pro duc t o f r ig orou s
test ing is o per at ive in D esc arte s’ Meditations, a work oft e n s ee n as t h e st art ing p oint of t he
En lig ht en m en t In “Ot he llo ’s D ou bt /Des d em o na ’s De at h,” sh e lo oks t o S h akes p ear e’s
Othello t o h igh lig ht th e v io le nce im p lic it in C art e sian a nxiety a nd its que st for th e cogito, or
ob jec tiv e r atio na l s e lf, as t he fou n da tion o f cert a in ty S h e argu es th at t his q ues t is mo tiv at ed by t he p ursu it of co ntro l a nd d o mina tion
The d ep e nd ency a nd vu ln era b ility of liv in g in a wor ld ma gic a lly co nstruc te d fr o m lov ers’ co nvers at io n a nd of h av in g on e’s s ens e of s elf m irrore d in a wo m an ’s eye s pos e a t hre at t o w h ich I ag o an d his alter na tiv e m et ap hys ics a nd e piste m ology ar e an a ns wer. I ag o off ers O th ello a place to st an d, off to th e s ide, h idd en , eav esdr op p in g, fro m w h ich h e ca n pu t D es de m on a, th eir love , an d t he w orld th ey
wov e t o t he te st. St ep p in g back , o uts ide th at w o rld, h e interr og at es her a nd it, ass em b lin g ev ide nce , d e ma n din g proo fs, im ag inin g, as he mov es f urt her into m ad nes s, th at th e m ove me nt is t ow ard gr ea ter clar ity of d is pas sion at e ob jectiv ity 48
Desc artes ’ do ub t wa s s imilarly se lf- in duc ed , as he c o ncocts t he “ evil ge n ius” to d ist a nce hims e lf fr o m all th at t he wor ld has to o ffer as p ot ent ially dec ep tiv e. 49 Sch e ma n wr ite s t ha t the ac tiv ity of th is se lf- in duc ed d ou bt “ is us ed to sp lit t he se lf a nd its imp ulses int o par ts t h at are a nd th at ar e no t t o be trust e d, t o be ide nt if ie d wit h ” 50 De scart es, like Ot he llo , is
47 Ib id , 1 24
48 Na o mi Sc he m an , “Ot h ello ’s Do ub t/D esd m on a ’s De at h,” in Epistemology: The Big
Questions, ed L ind a M art in Alc off (Oxf ord: Blac kwe ll, 19 9 8), 37 0
49 Ib id., 3 71 .
50 Ib id., 3 72 .
com p elle d t o distrus t his s ens es ou t o f f ear of m an ipu la tion a nd vu ln era b ility ; bot h
Desc artes a n d Ot h ello a do pt “a fu nd a m ent a lly p ara no id alie n at io n fr o m a f or m o f be lief
exp erienc ed a s d a ng ero usly se duc tiv e in fav or of a det ac he d an d c on tro lling o bject
The res ult, of c ours e, is Des d em o na ’s de at h.
E mbr ac in g Ia go ’s v ie w h as t h e re su lt of br in gin g [Ot he llo] to b e lieve w ha t he (tho ug ht) h e mo st f e are d t ha t D es de mo n a wa s un fa it hfu l to h im; bu t, as a wfu l as th at be lief w as for h im, it w ard e d o ff on e m ore a wfu l y et: t hat De sd e mo na w as n ot a “wh ore,” t ha t t he w orld s h e w ove by lovin g him was real, f ar m ore re al th a n t he o ne
Ia go off ere d, th ou g h (b ec aus e) n ot in his co ntr ol 52
Lik e Du B o is, Sch e ma n is re la tiv izin g a not io n of trut h t ha t loc ate s its c ert ainty in on e
source t he th inkin g s elf w h ich is d ef in e d in it s o pp os it io n t o t h e t hre at en ing Ot her w ho
mus t be a n nihilate d. T he tra ge dy r eve aled by t h e Ot he llo n arra tiv e is th e f act th at t he
sup po se dly sur e s ource for tru th w as in f act m is take n, a nd t ha t t he tru e s ourc e o f tr uth t he
com ed ic wor ld o f “ mu lt iple pos sib ilit ies in h ar mo nious b a la nce … a narc h ic dis loc at io ns of
order a n d id en tity …” w h ich is in here nt ly unc ert ain an d u n ab le t o be c o ntro lle d 53 was t he
wor ld t hat t he su pp os ed ly disp ass io n ate , r at io na l, ob jectiv e ag e nt s ub m it te d t o t ortur e an d
eve ntu ally de at h
The critiqu e o f s uch c lear ly id eo lo g ica lly- infu se d un der sta n din gs of tr ut h s ho uld, I
th ink, g ive p au se n ot on ly to th ose w ho w ou ld s eek to c ollap se th e no tion of t he B ib le ’s
in her en t tr ut h wit h n otio ns of trut h as inh ering in the tex t in suc h a way t hat ca n b e
ascer ta in e d t hro ug h t he ac tion o f an o bject ive, d is pas sion at e r at io na l a ge nt/ inter pre ter; it
sho uld also g ive p aus e t o th ose w ho , lik ew is e, ins ist th at trut h a pp ear s as on e t h in g an d in
on e way, a s o p po se d t o s o met h in g t h e kn o wled ge of w hic h is c o nstruc te d o ut of m ultip le
51 Ib id , 3 75
52 Ib id, 37 6.
53 Ib id., 3 69 .
source s, s ourc es t h at c oo per at e t o he a l t he co llectiv e bo dy in ste a d o f t ear ing or tort urin g it
If tr uth is re- th ou gh t alon g t h ese lines , a n d with t hes e c onc erns in m ind, t he se ns e in w hic h
the tex t is aut h orit at iv e beco m es m ore of a qu es tio n th a n an as su m ptio n s o met h in g t h at is
sou gh t, in ste a d o f assu m ed a n d t he ca use of ky riarc ha l su b mis sion . I f in d A lic ia S uskin
Ostrik er’s pra g ma tic a nd n o n-red uct ive a ppr o ach t o t he B ib le- as-s acre d in struc tiv e as t o
ho w t h is k in d of au th ority m ig ht lo ok:
For be liever s an d no n be lievers a like, t he B ible s ta nds a s t he qu int esse nt ial so urce of do g ma a nd a ut hor ity in s ociety. M a ny A mer ic an s co nsid er it mor e aut h orit at ive t ha n eit h er t he leg a l sys te m or sc ie nt if ic k no wled g e. Ye t an extr aor d in ary we a lt h o f
alter na tiv e id ea s a n d pos sib ilit ie s ex ist s, sc at ter ed thr ou gh out t he B ib lic al t exts id ea s an d pos sib ilit ie s t ha t e it h er q ues tion d iv in e a ut hor ity, or r e-d ef in e it, or ign ore it alto get h er Scr iptur e is de ep ly arch a ic an d s ta rkly co nt e mp orary , u n ivers alis t an d triba l, c o nserv at ive a nd ra dic a l, p erso na l a nd p u blic, h ot ly phys ic al a nd co olly me ta p hys ica l It c a n a n d s ho uld y ie ld nour is h me nt to m a ny d if fer en t s orts of hu n ger
The Bib le ’s irre duc ible excess , its c o ntra d ictor in ess, it s mu lt iplicity, m ake it d azz lin g an d dur ab le a s liter atur e; it m igh t als o be s aid t h at th ese q ua lities p oint to w ard th e irre duc ib le p le n itu de a n d u nk no wa b ility of God . 54
In dee d, p eo p le w ho o per at e w it h in t he fir st par a dig m an d wh o, in t urn , lo ok f or tr uth
an d div inity in th e B ible mu st ask th e mse lve s w ha t kin d o f Go d th ey are ass u min g if t h ey
in sis t o n v ie w in g th e tr ut h o f t he Bib le in a f lat, o ne- dim en sion a l f as hion t ha t c an b e
im me diat ely asc ert ain ed by a ppr oac h in g th e t ex t a nd extr act ing th at tru th via s o me k ind of
we ll- de fine d, su p pos ed ly ob jectiv e m et ho d or d ispo sition W he n th is no tio n o f tr uth is an a lyze d in ter ms of its qu it e ex tra- B iblica l ide olog ica l r oot s, a nd th us r elat iv ize d, it m ay
bec o me c le ar to b eliev ers th at ass u min g t h is k in d o f o b jec tiv e st a nce is a n act m ore ak in t o
id olatry th a n t o piety . H ere w e s ee th e u se of ide olog ica l cr it icis m f or t he f irst p ara d ig m ’s 54 A licia S usk in Ostr iker , For
ap pro ac h t o t h e B ib le N ot o nly d oes suc h an a p pro ach a id in r eve a ling t he int erpr eter ’s o wn
id eo lo g ica l assu m pt ions a n d d ee p r ea so nin gs, t he w ays in w h ich t he inter pre ter is b eg g in g
the q ues tion a n d mist aking ide o lo gy f or div in ity , but it als o off ers a s ta n dp oint t hat ca n lo ok
for t he vo ice of Go d, for trut h an d for au th ority, in a mor e mu lt i-d ime ns io n al w ay in t he tex t
its elf. W h ile t h e rec og n it io n o f po wer ide olo gies inscrib ed in t he t ext m ay be a c au se for r e-
th ink in g exac tly w h at we m e an w he n we s ay t ha t t he text is d iv in e, th ere is a m p le r ea so n f or
un derst a nd ing d ivin ity as work ing in an d thr ou g h t he f issur es in t he tex t, in an d t hro ug h our
strug g le a nd eve n r e ject io n of ide olog ie s t h at in f orm t he text d iv in ity as e mer g in g fr o m
bet w ee n t he ir fin ite cracks , an d in t he v ery v oic e s th at t hos e id eo lo g ies h ave exc lu de d 55
Tho se, es p ecially w it hin t h e f irst p ar ad ig m , wh o ten d to th ink t ha t div inity or sacr ed ne ss or
trut h st a nd o pp os ed to d ivers ity , str ug gle, te ns io n, be au ty, de sir e, e mot ion , or ev en
conf us io n are n ot on ly imp licitly d eny ing th e po s sibility t h at trut h is s o me th ing ot her t ha n t h e
id eo lo gy t h at le a ds t o th e myt h of ob jectiv ity a nd e mp loys t he t act ics of t est ing a nd t ortur e;
they ar e also de ny in g im port a nt s tra nd s o f ico no clas m in th e c hurc h’s tr ad it io n its elf. Th e
la st s ect io n will po in t t o t h ese str an ds, a n d co nc lude w it h way s t h at a r e-e nvis ion ed f irst
par a dig m m ay mov e f orw ar d a n d en ga ge in c ollab ora tiv e an d m utu ally cr it ica l et ho s o f
sh aring w it h t h e o th er par a dig ms of b ib lica l s tu dies
55 E lisa be th Sc hüss ler F ior enz a ha s writ te n exte n sive ly on t aking acc ou nt of th e r he tor ica l qu ality of th e text , not lea st in Rhetoric and Ethic T his a p pro ach ca n, in my v ie w, b e s ee n to yie ld su b mer ge d v oic es a nd h ig h ligh t a v ie w o f t he d ivine t ha t pers ist s d es pite a nd t hrou g h
hu m an sh ortc om ing s, evils, a n d sys te ms of p ow er S uch a view m ust of co urse c e ase to vie w muc h of th e B ib lica l text as f la tly pr escr ipt iv e, an d inst ea d lo ok f or t he d iv in e s p irit o f wis d om in th e v ery str ug gles of hu m a n life th at we so m etim es m ust ide nt ify a nd re ject .
c. A Way Forward: Impetus in the Tradition for a Collaborative View of Biblical Studies
My arg u me nt th at t he do m ina nt v iew of trut h o p erat ive in th e f irst p ar ad igm is
id eo lo g ica l is no t me a nt to im ply th at ot h er alt er na tiv e mo de s o f tr ut h ca n no t a ls o op era te
id eo lo g ica lly . T he o nly view o f tru th t ha t is not id eo lo gic a l is on e t h at exp licit ly r eco gn iz es its
ow n f a llibility an d lo oks b eyo nd it s bo un ds for n ew p oss ib ilities. By re no unc ing w h at wa s for mer ly acce pt ed as o bvious , ho wev er, a nd th u s d isco nt inu in g a r ea din g o f t he tr ad it io n
th at f orce s u po n it a n exter n al n ot io n of tr ut h, th e tr ad it io n its e lf m ay be se en to h old ins ig hts
th at c an e nco ura ge a m ore fu ll co lla b orat ion w it h bib lic a l st ud ie s in th e aca d emy a n d in
church co m mu n it ies S uch a cr it ic al a na lys is ser ves t o rev e al th e org a nic inter sect ion of conc erns w it hin th es e d is tinct c o m mu nities of d iscours e T h is inter sect io n, w h ich h as larg ely
rem a in ed im p lic it, may b e op en ed a n d rev ea led via a re-ex a m in ed p ed a go gy o ne w h ich
allo ws , not o nly ma ny v oic es of to day to t ake a sea t at t h e t a ble, bu t als o s h ows a
willing n ess to lo ok at th e tr a dition w it h fr es h eye s.
Scriptur e was , in f act, se en as p o lyva le nt fro m a very e ar ly t ime in Chr ist ian ity. If t he
Jew is h R ab b in ic tra dition is inc lu de d, Scriptur e ’s po lyv alenc e c ou ld b e s ho w n t o be th e v ie w
out of w hic h Chr ist ian ity e mer ge d I n e it her cas e , o ne ca n be gin to n ote t he c o m plexity o f
the Bib le ’s trut h a nd au th ority in t he do m ina nt tr op es an d v ery co m p osition o f t he Bib le
its elf. T h e st ories of Abr ah a m ar gu in g with God , of J aco b ’s wre st ling w it h G od, o f Go d
cha ng ing h is m ind re gar din g t he Isr ae lite s in th e de sert , t he N in evites , t o na m e on ly a f e w,
reve al a G od w ho co nt en ds a nd sp eak s t hro ug h stru gg le a n d ch a ng e. Th e writers of t he
Ps alms re gu lar ly arg ue w it h Go d, a nd o ffer n o in dic at io n t h at th eir acc usa tion s are im pious .
The w is do m lit erat ure in t he B ib le , as exh ibite d in Prov erb s, Ecc les iaste s, a nd Jo b, op er ate s
fro m at le as t t hre e dif fer en t st a nd p oints , all of w hic h are includ ed in th e aut hor it at ive ca no n.
The N ew Tes ta m en t c an on co nt ains fo ur d if fer e nt go sp els, eac h of w hic h hig hlig ht s a
differ en t an d s o me tim es t e nsiv e dim en sion o f J esus T he occ asio na l an d at-t im es-
contr a dict ory le tters o f Pa ul t he A p ost le a nd h is follow ers u tilize a p art icu lar ly t ime-
con dition ed g enr e, w hic h th e tr ad it ion h as oft e n see n as instruc tiv e t o s ub se que nt stru g gles
in t he c hurc h in its f or m, if n ot it s co nt en t. Th ere is litt le ind ic at io n in a ny of th e in div idu al
B ib lica l bo oks or in t he c a no n as a w ho le th at tr uth sh ou ld b e un ders to od f la tly or a part fro m
its e mer ge nce t hrou g h co lla b orat ion, d isc uss io n , a nd ar gu m en t
In ear ly Chr ist ian th ou gh t, th e v ie w t h at Scriptur e co nt ains leve ls of m e an in g th at
prioritiz e t he s pir it ua l over th e liter al w as m ost c om m on Or ige n, w ho live d fr o m
ap prox im ate ly 1 85- 25 4 C E , p ut fort h a v ie w of scrip tur e t ha t lo oke d f or mu lt iple lev els of
me a nin g, an d enc our ag ed re ad ers to look es pe cia lly int e ntly f or d iv in e wisd o m in th e
ap p are nt g aps or co ntra d ict io ns in t he tex t. He d id n ot att e m pt t o de ny th eir ex ist enc e or
off er a h ar mo n iza tion o f t he m; ra th er, h e ar gu ed th at Chr ist ian s s ho uld allow th e m t o dra w
the m d ee per int o t he D ivine kn ow le d ge a nd a wa y fro m a m ere ly hu m an u nd erst an d in g of
trut h. 56
Eve n s uch a n un like ly s ource a s Jo h n C alv in, w hos e t h oug ht is kn o wn by m a ny as
an im por ta nt p oint of d ep art ure for Pr ote st an t re velat io na l p ositiv is m, ca n be re ad to o ffer a
mu lt i-d ime ns io n al view of t he w ay in w h ich th e B ib le may b e un ders to od as tru e In t he
Institutes, he wr it es th at script ure is im port a nt a s a so urce for up ho ldin g a n ot io n of G od th at
wou ld hav e be en lost in our fa lle n co nsc io usn es s: “Scr ip ture , gat h ering u p t h e o th erw is e
conf use d k no w le dg e of Go d in o ur m in ds … c le a rly s ho ws us th e tr ue G od . ”57 T he trut h of
56 Se e Or ig en , Peri Archon, b ook I V, c h ap ter II, se ctio ns 4- 9
57 Joh n Ca lv in, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1 (L ou isv ille , K Y : W est m inst er Jo h n K n ox Pres s, 19 6 0), 7 0.
th at scr iptur e, ho w ever, d oes n ot sim ply lie in th e t ext its elf as in t he ju d icia l me ta p hors
disc uss ed a bov e; th e tr ut h is alter na tiv ely d escr ibe d in a trin it aria n f as hion , in t he int eract io n
bet w ee n t he Wor d of th e t ext a nd t he Sp ir it of th e t ext’s in ter pret at io n 58 Suc h a v ie w urg es
us t o s ee a n on go in g r elat ions h ip b et we en t he t wo in wh ic h d iv in ity is pr es ent in b oth t he
voic e o f Go d, hu m a nly a nd communally un ders t oo d in ter ms of a s har ed tex t, an d th e S p irit
th at c ons ta nt ly works in our m inds t o ap pre he n d th e W ord . T his is a t he m e th at
cont e mp or ary t he olog ian s in Ref or me d do g ma tics, int en t on pr ob le m at iz in g t h e bib lic is m
th at ha s pla gue d th e tr ad it io n, h ave t ake n u p D aw n D e Vr ies , f or ex a m ple, h as arg ue d t h at
“de prav ity” 59 is ex pres se d as our t e nd ency to foc u s o n or e lev at e o n e asp ect of Script ure an d t o, in t urn , e sse nt ialize a n d h ar de n “ W ord of God” as pr ese nt in th e t ext 60 S he ar gue s
fro m t he co nt ext of th e R efor m ed tra d it io n f or an a lter n at ive, re la tion a l u n derst a nd ing of t he
id ea t ha t o ur k no wled ge of Go d is grou n de d in sola scriptura. Th is v iew se es t h e W ord of
God in t erm s o f J esus Chr is t, a nd th e C hr ist ia n com m un ity as o ne t hat re ad s Scr ip tur e w it h
a “c hris to lo gic a l ce nt er,” v ie w in g th e B ib le a s t h e a ut hor it at ive W or d o f Go d inso far as it acts
to “ orien t t he ch urch as it ex pec ts a fr es h disc lo sure of th e W ord . ” 61
The C hris tia n tr ad it io n h as, m ore over , o fte n e m ph as ize d t h e activ ity of Go d as
def initiv e Th is is exe m p lified n ot leas t in th e wo rk of K ar l B art h H e ar gu ed t ha t Go d is
be in g- in- act io n an d th at a ll ra tion a lity st e ms fro m G od ’s fre e d ecision a view t ha t, to m e,
58 Ib id , 9 3
59 “De prav ity” as g en era lly us e d in Ref or me d t he o lo gy re fers to a co nce pt of to ta l hu m an lim it at io n t h at ext en ds eve n t o r at io n ality it se lf thus ca llin g int o qu est io n any pr et en se to ob jec tiv ity ( a par t fr o m gr ace) , or a ny no tio n o f in corrup tib le tra d itio ns, pr act ices , or ph ilos op h ies .
60 Da wn De Vr ies, “ ‘Ever To Be Ref or me d Accor d ing to t he W or d o f Go d ’: C a n t he Scr ip ture
Princ ip le Be Re de e me d f or F e m in ist T heo logy ?” in Feminist and Womanist Essays in Reformed Dogmatics, eds A my P la nt ing a- Pa uw a nd Ser en e J on es ( Lou isv ille, K Y :
W est m in ster Jo hn K nox Pr ess , 20 0 6), 49- 5 0.
61 Ib id., 5 3.
pro ble m atiz es a ny f lat un ders ta n ding o f a ut hor it y or tr ut h t ha t u ses God ’s Wor d t o af fir m a nd
har de n hu m an soc ieta l ord ers a nd struc ture s H um a ns, in B art h’s vie w, c an n ot eve n k no w
wh at th ey r ea lly me a n wh en t hey r ef er t o Go d 62 T ruth is ic on oc las tic a nd t hus dy na m ic, kno wn in a c on sta nt re la tion t o t he w ork o f Go d. 63
W h ile C hrist ia n t h eo lo gy will hav e t o co nt inu e t o th ink t hro ug h t he w ays in wh ic h
B ib lica l a nd p op ular m et ap hor s f or Go d par tic ip ate in th eir o wn for m s o f kyr iarc ha l id eo lo gy an d B art h ’s work , lik e ma ny ot hers , is in s o me r es pect s su sce pt ib le t o t h is char ge t hes e m any res ource s s ho w no t o n ly t ha t t he ide olog ic al jud icia l no tion of tru th is
far fro m un if or m in th e tr a dition ’s p ast T hey a ls o s ho w t h at th ere are co nce pt ua l too ls for op en ing th e tr a dition to rec eiv e in for m at io n fr o m , a nd int erac t co lla b orat iv ely w it h, th e o th er
par a dig ms of b ib lica l s tu dies a nd to b e s elf-co ns ciou s ab out t he p art it p lays in for m ing in d ividu als a n d s ociet al struc ture s.
Conclusion
I h ave ar gu ed th at t he fir st par a dig m in b iblic al s tud ie s h o lds a n inextr ic ab le a n d
bin ding cla im u po n th e f ie ld o f bib lic a l st ud ies n ot on ly bec aus e it is t he orig in a l par ad ig m
th at le d t o th e ex is te nce of th e s u bse qu en t par a dig ms, b ut also b eca use it co nt in ue s t o be
the pr im ary o per at io n al p ar ad ig m in soc iety ou ts id e o f t h e ac a de my a soc iety in w hic h
mo st pe o ple in ter act with t he B ib le v ia t he ch urch. I hav e als o arg ue d t h at r e-e nvision ing th is par a dig m in suc h a way t ha t it c an crit ique a nd rece ive critic is m a nd inf orm at ion fro m the ot h er par ad ig ms is po ssib le if an d wh en t he first p ar ad ig m o pe ns it s me th od olo gy u p t o
62 Kar l B art h, Church Dogmatics Volume II: The Doctrine of God, Part 1 ( E din bur gh : T &T Clark, 19 5 7), 2 84.
63 Se e e sp ecia lly K arl Bar th , Fides Quaerens Intellectum (R ich m on d: Jo hn K nox Pr ess, 19 6 0), 38- 9.
the kin d o f id eo lo gic a l cr it iqu e th at c a n be fo un d in t he four th cultural-hermeneutic-
postmodern paradigm, as su gg est ed in Democratizing Biblical Studies W h en t he fir st
par a dig m re lat iviz es an d r en ou nce s t he d o min a nce of th e id eo log ica l ju dic ial n ot io n of trut h
an d aut h ority t ha t d ef ines its po pu lar ex ist enc e t od ay wh en its in ter pre ters ar e ab le to
cla im t h eir o wn situ ate d a ge ncy wh ile per sis tin g in look in g to th e B ible as a s acre d s p ace to he ar fr o m Go d th e f irst p ar ad ig m w ill n o lo ng er ne ed t o s ee h ist oric al critic is m, lit erary
critic is m , or p olit ic al co nsid erat ions a s t hre ats to its t he oret ic al p urity O p erat ing w it h a mor e
de mocr at ic no tion o f tru th t ha t is wis e to kyr iarcha l cr it iq ue, t hos e with in t he f irst p ara d ig m
can look for G od ’s pr op he tic vo ice n ot on ly in t h e lit era l se nse o f t he tex t, bu t a ls o in t he
strug g les , t he co ntr ad ict io ns a nd th e ga ps fro m v oic es w ith in t he ch urch , an d fr o m v oic es
wh o ap pr oac h t he B ib le fro m ot h er loc atio ns W he n t h is cr it ica l, yet o pe n disp os it io n t ow ar d
the st udy of th e B ible is a llow ed to b loss om in a mor e de m ocrat ic p ed ag og ic al se tt in g, th ere
m ay be un prec ed e nte d op p ortu nities for c o lla bo rat io n bet w ee n t he ac a de my, th e bro a der
com m un ity , a n d t he ch urch . T he Bib le r e ma ins an d will lik ely co nt in ue to re m ain a
cont en tious b ook . I t is my ho p e t ha t t ho se w ho c ont e nd over its me a nin g c an d o s o
together in a way t hat is o p en to n ew p oss ibilit ies an d v is io ns for ju stic e, a nd in a w ay t ha t
cont inue s t o lo ok f or t he Wor d of G od inst ea d of ass u min g it