Introduction: The Bible and

Christian Theology

The articles in this issue were presented at a conference on "The Bible

and Christian Theology" at the University of Chicago Divinity School on
May 7-9, 1995. The purpose of the conference was to stimulate dialogue
between biblical scholars and theologians and explore ways of crossferdlization between their respective disciplities. Tbe context was academic rather than ecclesial, but discussion was restricted to Christian theology in the interest of narrowing the focus. Jewish scholarship is also
highly pertinent to the relationship between the Bible and theology, but
the relationship between Jewish and Chrisdan interpretation raises its
own set of issues, and it was felt that the problems of inner-Chrisdan
dialogue between biblical scholars and theologians are sufficiently serious
and complex to warrant separate discussion. (The same may be ti'ue of
inner-Jewish dialogue.) Furthermore, in view of the brevity of tbe conference, there was no attempt to span thefiallspectrum of Christian opinion,
from conservadve right to radical left. None of the speakers at the conference could be said to represent an extremity of the spectrum. All assume
the validity of modern critical biblical scbolarsbip as it has developed over
the past two hundred years and also accept that theology is in principle
a legitimate academic enterprise. Nonetheless, their views are very far
from being monolithic, and they cannot be said to reflect a consensus on
the proper relationship bet^veen theology and biblical interpretatioti.
Tbe clearest and mostfrillyarticulated proposal for understanding that
relationship presented here is undoubtedly that of Schubert Ogden. For
Ogden, an authentically theological way of^ construing the Bible can only
be a special case of bistorical theology, as distinct from both systematic
and practical theology. Consequendy, "no way of interpredng the biblical
wridngs can be critical without abstracdng completely from validating
their own claims to validity" (p. 183). Questions of vahdity and adequacy
belong to the province of the systematician rather than to that of the
interpreter. Ogden allows that biblical scholars too may join in the discussion of such issues, if they have thought about them sufficiently, but they
have no special competence in this discussion qua biblical scholars. For

167

The Journal of Religion

people familiar with discussions of biblical theology over the last half century, this position is likely to recall Krister Stendahl's famous distinction
between "what it meant" and "what it means." This is not Ogden's distincdon, however, if I understand him correctly. For him, theological interpretation of the Bible, even as historical theology, must be existential interpretation, and so its concern is never only with the past, but includes
what the text now means. His concern is to enstire that the results of
interpretadon should not be controlled externally by what the interpreter or someone else believes to be valid.
Ogden's delineation of theological specializadons, however, met with
considerable resistance at the conference, and the basis of that resistance
is apparent in these essays. On the one hand, Robert Morgan's argument
that critical study of the New Testament can provide, or at least support,
a doctrinal norm assigns to biblical interpretadon a normative role tbat
Ogden reserves for systematic tbeology. On the other hand, the greater
number of contributors to this volume avoid issues of doctrinal normativit), but tend to view the relationship between biblical interpretation and
systematics as an open-ended dialogue in which neither party has a
normative voice. (Pheme Perkins's article on the canon stands apart from
the others because of its historical character, but it is relevant to the discussion at several points.)
Morgan focuses on New Testament tbeology rather than biblical tbeology in general, on tbe grounds diat it is tbe New Testament that is decisive for Christianity (but compare Perkins's discussion of the Marcionite
controversy, pp. 310-12). He grants that "New Testament theology does
not give arguments for the truth of Christianity, as once was expected,
but rather helps clarify its idendty." This implies a readiness to claim that
some versions of Christianity are not authentic, insofar as they are not
true to the New Testament witness. But Morgan's claim is more specific
than this. He claims to find "the unifying center of the New Testament
and the doctrinal nortn of Christianity" (p. 217) in the confession ofJesus
as Lord and God, which is most fully ardculated in the Gospel of John.
He admits, however, that the dogmatic definidon of the divinity of Jesus
is not an obvious principle of unity in the New Testament. He is led to it,
not by an inductive analysis of those wridngs, but by "the centrality of the
dogma of Christ's divinity to later Christianity" (p, 214). It is unhkely that
biblical theologians will agree on any one center The long-standing
search for a center of either testament has produced little consensus to
date. The validity of Morgan's proposal, however, does not depend on
the likelihood of achieving a consensus of scholars. It is a normative doctrinal claim, and as such, as Morgan acknowledges at the end of his essay,
it can only be upheld by an ecclesial magisterium (which he imagines in
charitably benign terms). Morgan's essay presupposes an ecclesial context

168

Introduction
to a greater degree than any of the other essays in this volume. It may be
for this reason that none of the other contributors seems to share his
concern for doctrinal norms.
Several of the other contributors, however, also show resistance to Ogden s clear separation of theological specializations. Some of the resistance reflects a reluctance to entrust judgments of validity to the fields
of systematic theology and philosophy. Werner Jeanrond shares Ogden's
concern to protect the integrity of biblical interpretation by affirming its
independence of any particular religious institution or faitb perspecdve,
Jeanrond is interested in discovering the diversity of theologies operative
within the biblical texts and is wary of conceptual approaches that are
"always already informed by some confessional or faith perspective and
therefore not as open to the retrieval of other theological perspectives
that the texts may disclose otice they are read critically and interdisciplinarily" (p. 245). The primary concern is to explore the potendal of the
texts themselves, and this should not be restricted by confessional requiretiients. Fven the canon, wbich is by definition the focus of biblical
tbeology, should not be used to restrict interpretative options. (Compare
the reflections of Perkins on the need to respect the full canon, but also
"to discover die divine outside of the canon.") Jeanrond, however, does
not draw clear boundary lines between the disciplines, as does Ogden.
He agrees with Ogden that it is not the job of the biblical interpreter, as
such, to pronounce on the validity of theological claims. But rather than
assign that task to the systematic theologian, he calls fbr mutually critical
dialogue between biblical scholars and theologians, apparendy in the
hope that truth will emerge, or be approximated, in the process.
The tnore pervasive criticism of Ogden's proposal at the conference,
however, concerned the possibility of abstracdng completely from claims
to validity, whether on the part of biblical interpreters or of anyone else.
John Donabue endorses the new historicist insistence "that the subjective
disposidons of tbe interpreter are essendal for meaning at every stage of
reading, including the descripdve" (p. 271). It does not seem to me that
tliis insight is necessarily incompadble with Ogden's posidon. Ogden's
point, following Bultmann, is that while no exegesis is possible without
presuppositions, no properly critical exegesis can presuppose its results.
The new historicists would surely agree that the subjecdve disposidons of
the interpreter cannot simply determine the results (as some confessional
theologians would have it) but must also be subject to cridcism. But Donahue's posidon is closer to that ofJeanrond than to that of Ogden. While
he does not claim that biblical theology is equipped to make decisions
about theological validity, he does not assign that role to any other specialization. Rather, the way to theological insight is through dialogue.
One of the virtues of the new historicism is that it calls for dialogue, not
169

The Journal of Religion

only between biblical interpretadon and other disciplines but also within
biblical scholarship between literary and sociological approaches. Donahue, like Jeanrond, etnphasizes the diversity of biblical theologies. He
comments that "at present, we may have to be content with 'represendng'
a series of local theologies which await systematizadon" (p. 275). One
wonders, however, whether an approach to biblical interpretation that is
based on the new historicism really awaits systematization, or is not inherently unsystematic, and correspondingly opposed to conferring any kind
of theological normadvity on literary and historical interpretation.
The importance of dialogue as the way to truth is the explicit focus of
Carol Newsom's essay. Traditional theology, including biblical theology,
has been based on a "monologic" view of truth. Hence the persistent
search for a "center" in biblical theology. Monologic truth is propositional
and systematic and can in principle be comprehended by a single consciousness. In contrast, "dialogic" truth, as Newsom derives it from Bakhdn, requires a plurality of unmerged voices. It is embodied and not abstract or propositional. It resists systematization and is always open or
"unfinalizable." On this model, tbe task of the biblical theologian is neither to systematize the local theologies of the Bible nor to identify a normative center, but "to bring these texts and ideas together and force them
to quarrel." Such an approach lends itself well to appreciadng the diversity of the biblical materials, but it would seem to require a fairly sweeping
rejection of the monologic, "final," postulates of traditional dieology on
a topic like christology. Burke Long goes even further in celebrating the
"dance of clashing orientadons." Whereas Langdon Gilkey felt that we
desperately need a tbeological intelligible. Long cheerfully dispenses with
it. Biblical God-language can be understood as "metaphors rooted in socially constructed, self-interested and validated, discourse-formed pictures of'world-out-there'" (p. 285). Biblical theology becomes "a selfreflexive critique of socially constructed biblical knowledge" (p. 288).
Again, sucb an utterly unsystematic, nonnormative approacb bas obvious
advantages for the descriptive work of the biblical interpreter, but requires radical revision of the postulates of traditional theology.
This is not to suggest that the more postmodern contribudons in tbis
volume are incompatible with any kind of theology. They may well admit
of the "existendal interpretation" which Ogden takes to be the proper
task of biblical theologians, if the adjective "existendal" is understood in a
broad sense. They may also allow the recognition of some form of biblical
autbority. In his helpfril terminological discussion, Charles Wood distinguishes between "creadve" or "causadve" authority on the one hand and
"normative" or "definitional" authority on the other There would seem
to be plenty of room for "creative" authority in all the models of biblical
interpretation considered bere. True, postmodern interpretadon is not

170

Introduction
likely to generate and confirm in the human mind assent to the things
to be believed, as the Reformed tradition would have it, but it can be
illuminating and inspiring nonetheless.
Normative or definitional authority is another matter I suspect that
most people who are concerned with theology at all would agree with
Morgan that "scripture is in some sense normative for Christian belief
and pracdce" (p. 207). A person who finds no point of continuity with
the New Testament would hardly want to be considered a Chrisdan. The
problem arises if we want to specify in luhat sense Scripture is normative.
It is certainly possible, whether desirable or not, for ecclesial institutions
to define doctrinal norms. Whether any such norms can be established
or defended by critical biblical scholarship, however, is very doubtful.
In his recent book. The Gollapse of History (reviewed by Walter Brueggemann on pp, 349 ff. of this volume), Leo Perdue sums up the state of
Old Testament theology as follows: "It should be obvious by now that Old
Testament theology is a vital discipline in the present. Its voices are many
and disparate, they speak out of different methodologies and at times
even conflicting epistemologies . , . and it is highly doubtful that anything
approaching a consensus of presentation and tmderstanding will develop" {The Gollapse of History [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994], p. 301). This
conclusion is remarkably similar to that of another survey of current approaches to biblical interpretadon of a different sort, called The Postmodern
Bible: "Tbe Postmodern Bible emerges in a world of competing discourses
and global conflicts and connections. Readers of literary and cultural critical theory on the Bible will condnue to face a muldtude of methodologies
and readings that give no promise of a coherent picture" (E. Castelli et
al., eds.. The Postmodern Bible [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,
1985], p. 309). Perdue has none of the iconoclastic ambitions of the editors of the Postmodern Bible. The con\ ergence of coticlusions in the two
books confirms the accuracy of the observation. The small sample of current opitiion presented in this volume also attests to the diversity of approaches that characterizes contemporary biblical interpretation. It suggests that if there is to be renewed dialogue between biblical scholarship
and theology, that dialogue will be marked by the celebration of diversity
ratber tban the search for unity.
JOHN J, COLLINS

Guest Editor
University ofGhicago

171