No meu entender, a sacralização do cotidiano, antigo ou atual, sempre encontrou na Bíblia uma ferramenta eficaz, enquanto esta possibilita a leitura do real como subjetividade, espaço no qual a ação humana é reduzida à vivência intensa da emoção e do entusiasmo, constituindo a realidade total, até acabar assumindo o rótulo de história objetiva, momento em que perde seu fervor querigmático e se acomoda.
O mundo bíblico e o mundo atual se entrelaçam de tal maneira que o ressentimento pode ser legitimado, desde que seja lido como indignação moral, ao mesmo tempo em que vivências primitivas são literalmente recriadas, apresentando-se como panacéias para os malefícios da racionalidade ocidental.
Esse mecanismo social permite ao intelectual, entre outras coisas, desobrigar-se de um compromisso social efetivo, reduzindo os problemas do mundo a problemas morais…
metodos
Fundamentalismo: um modo de estar no mundo
Vira e mexe, passa boi passa boiada, demora… mas, como não há nada como um dia depois do outro, o que escrevo na Ayrton’s Biblical Page e no Observatório Bíblico, acaba, de vez em quando – embora não seja sempre, nem frequente, muito menos dominante, ainda bem! – provocando reações fundamentalistas de determinados leitores indignados com a leitura acadêmica ou “científica” da Bíblia.
Certos fundamentalistas atiram para todo lado: na exegese moderna de modo geral; nos exegetas como um grupo de intelectuais que “matam” a Bíblia e que deveriam, portanto, ser silenciados, podados, extintos, em benefício da “verdadeira” Palavra de Deus; nos exegetas que chegam a ser – anacronicamente – comparados aos “doutores da Lei” do NT e responsabilizados, como aqueles (gente, acorda: foram os romanos!), pela morte de Jesus; nos exegetas “críticos” e destruidores da verdade; na ciência moderna como compreensão inadequada e até mesmo descabida da realidade; na razão humana como negação da fé… Reações que sempre procuram afirmar sua legitimidade com citações da Bíblia, com leituras literalistas dos textos bíblicos (uma tradução perrengue pode algum dia ser considerada texto literal?)… e por aí afora.
Acabo de chegar de mais uma reunião do grupo dos Biblistas Mineiros, ocorrida ontem em Belo Horizonte, reunião de dia inteiro, muito proveitosa, onde, entre outras coisas, discutimos o tema de nosso próximo número da revista Estudos Bíblicos publicada pela Vozes. Que tratará da questão dos métodos de leitura da Bíblia. E de sua necessidade. E, é claro, em nosso estudo, mesmo que captada apenas com o canto do olho, aparecerá a análise do modo fundamentalista de ver a realidade. Modo que recusa como necessária qualquer metodologia exegética porque acredita ter acesso direto e exclusivo ao significado do texto bíblico.
Se esse pessoal lesse Kant e soubesse da distinção entre “noumenon” e “fenômeno”. Se esse pessoal lesse física quântica e descobrisse o quanto a realidade é diferente do que aparenta ser. Ah, mas não lê. E nem relê! Já dizia o grande R. Barthes: Quem não relê um texto, lê, em todos os textos, sempre o mesmo texto.
Quer exemplos? Leia nos comentários dos posts do Observatório Bíblico aqui e aqui.
Recomendo a releitura – quem não relê, já sabe, não? – do post que escrevi em 7 de janeiro de 2006: Fundamentalismo: um desafio ecumênico.
Algo realmente extravagante
Leia e avalie.
Posted by Kevin A. Wilson – Blue Cord: January 20, 2007
A few weeks ago, I was trying to practice my PHP skills, so I decided to write a plugin for WordPress. The plugin was supposed to allow me to type something like [ESV=Leviticus 3:16] and have the plugin automatically replace the reference with the actual verse. The only feed I found was the English Standard Version, so I decided to use their service.
I got the plugin to work perfectly. After finishing it, however, I was at the ESV website and I noticed their terms of service. Most of it was pretty standard, but I did find one problematic section:
This service is available for use only by individuals and non-commercial organizations that use the service in ways consistent with the historic Christian understanding of doctrine and the Bible, as summarized in the following foundational doctrines. (See our statement of faith.)
. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
. There is one God, the Creator of all things, who exists eternally in three persons–Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man; he died on the cross, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will come again.
. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Most of this I can affirm with no problem. The inerrancy clause, however, means that I cannot use the service. I contacted them directly and asked for clarification, and they responded by saying that I do have to accept inerrancy in order to use the feed service.
I have no problem with the ESV people setting up guidelines for who may use their service. After all, I can imagine they wouldn’t want to provide the feed for people who are mocking the Bible or using it for other non-Christian activities. And, since it is their service, they of course have the right to set up any guidelines they want.
It seems to me, however, that limiting it to people who subscribe to inerrancy is limiting its use unnecessarily. For one thing, inerrancy is not a part of “the historic Christian understanding of doctrine and the Bible,” even though they claim this is the case. Do they really want to draw the circle so tightly? The Bible is a big boy; it can take care of itself. I don’t think it needs them to protect it from people who accept the inspiration and authority of the Bible but don’t hold inerrancy.
They have other guidelines that would allow me to cut and paste the ESV into my site, and those guidelines are not as restrictive. And I do have the ESV for Logos, so I could cut and paste with no problem. But if I am going to go to the trouble to open up Logos, I am going to cut and paste from the NRSV, which is a better translation anyway.
The long and short of this is that you will not be seeing the ESV automatically quoted on my website. However, if you are interested in the plugin and can abide by their guidelines, I would be happy to share it with you.
CEBI oferece curso de Bíblia por correspondência
Você sabia que o CEBI oferece um curso de Bíblia por correspondência?
Veja este trecho, que está no seu site:
O Curso de Bíblia por Correspondência destina-se àquelas pessoas que têm dificuldade em participar de encontros de formação oferecidos pelo CEBI. Embora o curso seja apresentado em linguagem acessível, ele não é um simples “abc” da Bíblia. Destina-se, portanto, a pessoas que buscam um aprofundamento maior. O curso é dividido em módulos e fascículos, que são enviados pelo correio. Concluído o estudo de um fascículo, o cursista responde às perguntas e envia sua elaboração escrita à equipe estadual, recebendo, em seguida, o fascículo seguinte. O curso aborda os seguintes temas (cont.)
Para saber mais sobre o CEBI e a leitura popular da Bíblia, leia aqui e aqui.
Jacques Berlinerblau e a SBL na blogosfera
A repercussão do artigo de Jacques Berlinerblau comentado no post anterior pode ser lida em Blogger-Cooler: the role of the SBL no biblioblog Deinde, por Danny Zacharias.
Leio também que Jacques Berlinerblau estará tratando do assunto no Congresso da AAR – American Academy of Religion – que é realizado junto com o da SBL. O abstract de sua apresentação é o seguinte (cf. AAR A19-105: Sunday – 5:00 pm-6:30 pm):
Secular Criticism, the AAR, and the SBL
I make two assumptions. First, that the two major scholarly organizations devoted to the study of Scripture and Religion, the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion have excluded non-theist perspectives in their scholarly discourses and practices. Second, that this exclusion has had fairly catastrophic effects for the academic study of religion, and by extension these societies themselves. Starting with a definition of “secular criticism,’ I examine how a-religious and irreligious forms of criticism can find no institutional place within scholarly societies that imagine themselves to be, ironically, bastions of secular reason. I then discuss the marginalization of religious studies within the larger university framework of the humanities and the social sciences. This marginalization, it is argued, is partly attributable to the misgivings that the mainstream (and stridently ‘secular’) Academy has about their pious colleagues in the fields that study religion.
Jacques Berlinerblau bate forte na SBL às vésperas de seu Congresso Anual
A SBL – Society of Biblical Literature – fará seu Congresso Anual de 18 a 21 de novembro de 2006 em Washington, DC. Como diz a página de Congressos da SBL, este é o maior encontro de especialistas em Bíblia de todo o mundo (the Annual Meeting is the largest gathering of biblical scholars in the world). Claro, pois cerca de 6 mil biblistas estarão presentes!
Por outro lado, no The Chronicle of Higher Education (issue dated November 10, 2006), Jacques Berlinerblau escreve interessante artigo com o título What’s Wrong With the Society of Biblical Literature? (O que há de errado com a SBL?), onde impiedosamente “massacra” a atuação da maior sociedade bíblica do mundo e o universo da pesquisa e do ensino bíblicos nos USA.
Leia você mesmo o polêmico texto e avalie. Acho que o artigo vai dar muito debate nos biblioblogs. Alguns já o citaram… Acho até que alguns dos problemas citados são de todos, também nossos, não apenas dos norte-americanos!
Quem é Jacques Berlinerblau?
Jacques Berlinerblau is director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. He is the author of The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Veja este e outros livros do autor na Amazon.com. E não deixe de ver o perfil do autor.
O artigo
What’s Wrong With the Society of Biblical Literature?
By JACQUES BERLINERBLAU
This is a great time for the Bible, but can the same be said for biblical scholarship? That is most likely a question that won’t be addressed later this month when biblical scholars descend upon Washington for their annual conferences. The Society of Biblical Literature, for its part, will assemble a sizable chunk of its 6,000 members, few of whom, I would surmise, will be considered any sort of national security risk. As far as academic societies go, the SBL is about as unthreatening and placid as they come. “Edgy,” “controversial,” or even “relevant” are not the terms that spring to mind when trying to describe its activities. The SBL, of which I’ve been a member since the early 1990s, is allergic to even thinking clearly and critically about itself, or listening to the concerns of its members.
As for the Bible, well, it is living large again because America is in the midst of a religious revival. What some call the Third and others the Fourth Great Awakening is born of the resurgence of conservative Christianity. Among evangelicals, fundamentalists, neo-evangelicals, and Pentecostals, the centrality of Scripture to Christian life is taken as a given. It is estimated that these groups make up roughly 25 percent of the electorate. They also appear to have been the vanguard of the so-called “values voters” in the 2004 campaign. The awesome power of their ballot has not been lost upon Democratic strategists. No one should be surprised that 2008 presidential hopefuls now routinely pepper their rhetoric with scriptural allusions. The consequences of the electoral and demographic rise of “Bible-believing Christians,” as some like to call themselves, are not difficult to discern. As they soar in the nation’s public life, their cherished text soars with them.
Both the country’s current president and his predecessor accord Scripture great esteem. “Religious special-interest groups” aggressively factor scriptural ideas into their policy positions. Across America groups on the religious right, but increasingly on the left as well, presume that the Bible offers instruction regarding social issues such as research on human embryonic stem cells, poverty, the environment, homosexuality, abortion, public-school curricula, and so on.
Next week when we start one of the last joint meetings of the American Academy of Religion and the SBL (a parting of the ways will be initiated in 2008), it’s a good time to ask why biblical scholarship isn’t sharing in all of this good fortune. One would imagine that with Scripture on the comeback trail, this would be something of a golden age for biblicists. The SBL, founded in 1880, should have the same cultural cachet as PEN or the Brookings Institution. It should be the impresario of an immense stable of talent, one that it dispatches to the media on a quotidian basis to explicate the rejuvenated Bible for both the general public and assorted high-culture types. Queries and concerns about Scripture ought to be routinely directed to an academic society whose thousands of members constitute the world’s most knowledgeable body of experts on all matters biblical. The SBL should be to the Bible what FIFA is to soccer.
It is always difficult to prove that an academic society and an academic discipline are underperforming. In one form or another, I have been cheerfully trying to validate this point for the past decade. So let me offer a few indexes of the society’s collective malaise:
. Consider that the most popular and widely discussed books about the Bible are almost never written by biblicists. On the down side, there is the execrable The Bible Code — a book claiming that urgent prophetic communications are encrypted, often diagonally, within the Hebrew text of the Bible. On the level of serious scholarship, I find it quite telling that some of the most influential studies — the ones that get reviewed in the major journals of opinion such as The New York Review of Books, The Nation, Commentary, The Times Literary Supplement, what have you — are written by professors of English and comparative literature. To give a recent example, Harold Bloom has released a quirky, unforgivable, but deliciously provocative book entitled Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine. In 2006, as far as I can tell, it has generated more media commentary than any other work of scholarship focused on the Bible in the past year.
. Consider that “biblical studies” as a college major is not exactly a booming industry. In secular universities, a department devoted solely to biblical studies is virtually unheard-of. When an undergraduate takes a class in Scripture, it will most probably be a survey course. In all likelihood, that will be the last course he or she takes in the Bible, and it will not prepare the student to engage the text’s awesome complexities. The campus biblicist — assuming there is a biblicist on the faculty — is usually mothballed in a religious-studies department as opposed to an autonomous biblical-studies program. He or she (and I know of very few secular universities with more than two biblicists on the payroll) is trotted out ignominiously with other members of the diverse religious cast wherever a theatrical display of ecumenical spirit is required. For better or for worse, American undergraduates major in religion, not in Bible.
. Consider that many secular universities don’t even have a full-time position in biblical studies. Biblical scholarship is underwritten by theological seminaries — be they independent or affixed to universities. In a recent piece in the online SBL Forum, I called attention to the fact that something like 95 percent of jobs advertised on the SBL site’s “Openings” list are placed there by nonsecular institutions. That there are few positions out there for nonbelievers is a fact that consistently fails to alarm the overwhelmingly religious membership of the SBL. But here is a reading of this situation that might concern them: There is absolutely no growth in our field. Secular universities have made the most minimal commitment to the study of Scripture, in spite of the role that the Bible has played in the philosophical, literary, and artistic heritage of Occidental civilization. Were it not for the aforementioned sectarian seminaries, there would be few places on earth for a biblicist to ply his or her craft.
. Consider that in nearly half a century, maybe since the time of the biblical archaeologist William Foxwell Albright, not a single biblical scholar has emerged as a public intellectual either nationally or internationally. Let me cite a few names from the bestiary of public intellectuals to give you a sense of what types of thinkers and styles of argumentation we are missing. No Hannah Arendt. No Pierre Bourdieu. No Cornel West. No Catharine MacKinnon. No Cynthia Ozick. No Noam Chomsky. No Bernard Lewis. There are undoubtedly many formidable biblicists out there. That almost none of them are known beyond their own denominations or the pages of the Journal of Biblical Literature is sobering.
As a family man, I have always found that there is one handy rule of thumb to abide by when confronting crisis: Establish blame. Who is to blame for the anomaly that biblical scholarship takes as its object of scrutiny the most widely read and interpreted text in the history of the species, yet few in America or elsewhere listen to biblical scholars?
I am going to spend the balance of this essay placing the blame on the Society of Biblical Literature itself. Now don’t get me wrong. There is plenty of blame to go around. We scholars have done little to rectify the situation, what with our boring books and our excesses of anti-charisma. Academic presses, which are really good at turning down manuscripts, are really bad at actually developing, marketing, and selling the ones they accept. Secular universities have cynically forsaken biblical studies. At best they outsource instruction in this area to the local seminary. At worst they hire neighborhood members of the clergy to get the job done. Those cost-saving measures have the added advantage of minimizing the risk of unsightly campus controversies. After all, how critical of Scripture, how critical of dogma (their own or someone else’s), is a priest, rabbi, or minister likely to be?
But if a first stone must be cast — and it must — then it should be aimed squarely at the SBL. I don’t mean to imply that the society is more unimaginative or bureaucratically blinkered than any other academic association. Nor do I deny that many truly intelligent, decent, and committed people work for it. I loathe conspiracy theorists, so I don’t think that sinister forces are at work down at headquarters in Atlanta. What I wish to say is that the SBL lacks a vision. That is because it does not understand itself, or its membership, or its anomalous position in the comity of academic disciplines. It can’t have a vision until it sees itself for what it really is.
The most fundamental misconception that the SBL has about itself is that it is just another academic society, like the American Sociological Association or the Modern Language Association. Accordingly, it conducts itself like all academic societies do. You know, it throws regional, national, and international conferences. It publishes a couple of journals. It provides scholarships for underprivileged members, etc., etc.
The SBL’s promotional literature doesn’t acknowledge a peculiarity about the society that strikes nearly every outside observer: Its membership is most decidedly not like that of any other academic society. The overwhelming majority of its practitioners work in the confessional contexts of seminaries and divinity schools (confessional as in confession of faith, not as in The Closer) and through their work pursue ends relevant to those contexts. Now please understand: I have no problem with this per se. I am not one of those Stalin-like secularists who won’t rest until the last rosary bead has been ground into a fine dust. Let theology flourish.
But if nearly all biblical scholarship takes place within an explicit or implicit theological framework, then the discipline itself will flounder. For under such circumstances, critical and heretical appraisals of the Bible emerge infrequently. And if they fail to emerge, then biblical scholars will fail to provide the public with the essential information needed to make informed decisions about the rising use of Scripture in American public life. On an issue such as stem-cell research, for example, biblical scholars could play an important role. If the SBL could better promote their scholarship, and if that scholarship went beyond microtheological disputes, they could readily challenge facile evangelical readings that insist that according to the Bible, a zygote is a human being.
The SBL cannot address the situation, because it cannot bring itself to acknowledge the confessional underpinnings of the enterprise. It conceives of itself as just another academic society, when in fact a large percentage of its membership — I would guess no less than 80 percent — consists of believers who work in institutions that many in the secular academy do not see as even being part of academe. (I find that secular condescension quite unjustified.) Of the remaining 20 percent employed in secular universities, I would estimate that 90 percent of those are graduates of theological seminaries.
The fact that so many biblical scholars labor in, or are graduates of, institutions with the words Saint, Holy, Jewish, Sacred, or Seminary in their titles creates a rather intriguing paradox. The SBL must remain steadfastly neutral in its governing practices. Part of the society’s survival strategy, I would imagine, consists of remaining impartial. It can’t, for example, have six consecutive Southern Baptist presidents. It can’t schedule 20 sessions at the national conference on the Book of Leviticus and the development of early Jewish law. For there to be progress in the empire, there must be peace. And for there to be peace, the empire must espouse neutrality. The SBL has to make sure that all of these disparate religious groups are granted equal time, representation, access to resources, and so on.
Strange as it might sound, the society’s governing ethos, as I have described it, amounts to a sort of reluctant pseudosecularism. There is one reading of secular government as a government that does not favor any particular religious constituency. Rather, its mandate is to make sure that religious life in general prospers. This can be referred to as soft secularism. The soft secular stance is not critical of religion, but supportive of it.
In the SBL, this reluctant secularism is so soft that it degenerates into an ethos of ecumenicism. In fact, this is really what the society excels in: fostering interfaith dialogue. And now let me raise my glass: The SBL has successfully created a sense of community among its religiously diverse members. Jews, Catholics, and Protestants routinely exchange ideas, work together on volumes, and organize steering committees, conferences, and so forth. They also conduct a rich interfaith conversation. It’s a bit hypocritical and platitudinous to my ear — but as history has shown, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews are capable of so much worse. Yet I have to ask: Isn’t this more properly the purview of the National Conference of Christians and Jews? What business does a putatively academic association have in the ecumenicism industry?
Also, an ecumenical vision has real drawbacks. Over the years, it has come to my attention that the society is plagued by issues of academic freedom. That is a dirty little secret and rarely discussed publicly. The incidents I know of almost always occur in a (nonunionized) seminary, and they usually involve a scholar who feels that he or she was silenced, denied promotion, or run out of town precisely because his or her thought ran afoul of denominational dogma.
In a field whose operating principle is ecumenical banter, there is little place, or tolerance, for the heretic. The SBL exerts tremendous efforts to get differing religious groups to speak to one another. The internal squabble of the heretic, however, has no useful place in this scheme. On the contrary, it is an embarrassment that subverts the logic of confessional communities working in concert with one another for the greater good. Please recall, however, that some of the very best thinking in the history of biblical scholarship has come forth precisely from heretics. Please also recall that intellectual work, by its very nature, often inclines toward dissent. I think of Barrington Moore Jr.’s observation that the university is where heresy is institutionalized. There is always the danger that a scholar beholden to an ethos of disinterested inquiry will trespass upon dogmatic boundaries. That’s what scholars do. And sometimes that’s hard to do, or dangerous to do, down at the seminary.
Another problem: Under the mistaken assumption that it is an academic society like any other, the SBL has encouraged scholarly specialization. In so doing, it has always favored philology and archaeology, all the while avoiding the more capacious domain of hermeneutics. The study of how Scripture has been interpreted across history, and in contemporary society, has traditionally held little interest for a society that places a premium on the examination of ancient languages and artifacts. But the study of hermeneutics really forces one to be a generalist. It is a diachronic enterprise through and through.
Let’s say that you are interested in studying depictions of Queen Jezebel in music and art. You will need to know about descriptions of her in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin (if not all three). You will need to know what the learned rabbis and fathers of the church had to say. Then you will need to look at renderings of the queen in, say, 16th-century France and 20th-century Ethiopia. In other words, you will need to abandon any pretense of being a specialist.
The Bible is a civilizational document, one that runs the course of history. So any attempt to study its continued interpretation must be interdisciplinary, and the scholar in question will have to step outside of well-defined fields of inquiry. But because the SBL models itself after specialist academic associations, it cannot speak to the very complexity of its own subject matter.
My sense is that the really interesting work being done in the field is on the question of interpretation. Postmodern scholars — when they can suppress their desire to evangelize for the fringe left — have played a pivotal role in developing this line of inquiry. I think, for example, of the thoughtful and adventurous scholarship of the University of Sheffield exegete David Clines. Yet looking at back issues of the Journal of Biblical Literature, I get the impression that hermeneutics is not part of what biblical scholars do.
True, there is the younger, smaller, upstart Biblical Interpretation. But why can’t the society’s flagship journal acknowledge that the Bible is relevant to biblicists outside the temporal frame of antiquity? As I see it, the SBL is abandoning this issue to the American Academy of Religion. And because a (messy?) divorce is in the works, why should the AAR gain custody of one of the most beautiful children? (The true causes of the coming separation are — as with everything in the academic study of religion — shrouded in mystery. On its Web site, the AAR devotes a good deal of space to explaining its rationale for splitting. On its Web site, the SBL, true to form, completely ignores an issue of great concern to its members.)
There is, of course, nothing objectionable about scholars’ engaging in extremely narrow and focused research. God bless the microspecialist who scrutinizes eastern Aramaisms in The Wisdom of Ben Sira. But should the entire field be cast in his or her image? Can philology and archaeology alone illuminate a document whose trajectory runs across the entire breadth of Occidental civilization?
In light of these remarks, a few recommendations are in order. First, the SBL desperately needs to know more about the identity of its own practitioners, and it needs to share that information with its members. I would like to see a census, if you will, of the rank and file. The questions of interest to me: What percentage of members practice in theological institutions? What percentage work in a university not affiliated with any denomination? Of the latter, how many did their graduate work in seminaries? What is the denominational breakdown of the society? Is the persistent rumor that the SBL is dominated — if not overrun — by conservative Christians true? Does this explain the oft-heard accusation that the society takes an overly reverent, uncritical attitude toward the Bible and religion in general? And does this explain why the society has done so little to explore Scripture’s aforementioned comeback in American politics? I hear comments about the society’s evangelical tilt all the time. I don’t know if they are accurate, but I (and many others) sure would like to find out.
More questions: Which secular universities have a biblicist on the faculty? Which do not? As a conversation starter, I would suggest that the SBL adopt the goal of creating 100 new positions in biblical scholarship in the next decade in secular universities. (Seminarians, naturally, are encouraged to apply, but universities should be mindful of the importance of having secular scholars on staff.) This would mean making the case to academe (and the public at large) about the Bible’s central and enduring place in humanistic inquiry. I might also recommend that the society get a little nasty. It should aggressively caution secular universities against excessively outsourcing biblical instruction to either theological institutions or part-time clergymen. This is no slight on theology — it is simply a question of creating more job opportunities for beleaguered graduate students.
Next, the SBL must recognize that it is not like other academic societies and use that to its advantage. Unlike the discipline of, say, modern German literature, biblical scholars can legitimately claim that there are upward of a billion people worldwide who are already familiar with, and perhaps interested in, what they study. The society has to find a way to connect with lay audiences. I do not know why that happens so infrequently, but scholars must take some of the blame here. Maybe readers tune biblical scholarship out because it is incomprehensibly specialized and physically painful to read. Further, so much of it comes from a specifically and recognizably confessional angle that I wonder if readers are skeptical of the “neutrality” of those who write about the Bible.
The society might think of recalibrating the ratio of specialized studies to more-accessible ones in its own publication series. Not everyone can be writing about hapax legomena in the Book of Enoch. I propose a series developed in conjunction with a major trade publisher. There, top-flight biblicists would be advised by professional editors as to how to craft their messages for a cultivated lay readership. From there, let the professional marketing departments do their magic.
As for academic freedom, something needs to be done — urgently. The obvious move is to call for a “blue-ribbon panel” of SBL members to investigate disputes regarding alleged infringements of scholarly freedom. Then again, how would any given seminary feel about having its internal affairs judged by scholars who themselves are members of seminaries affiliated with rival denominations? (Alas, that is where the ecumenical niceties would cease.) Here, I have no answer. I only know that the problem exists, and the SBL is the only entity that can even begin to address it.
Last, the society needs to devote thought and resources to the creation of a form of biblical scholarship that goes beyond theology and ecumenical dialogue. That would require exploring ways to speak about the Bible that are not specifically Jewish or Episcopalian or Lutheran. In so doing, the SBL would be required to suspendor, ideally, abandonits ecumenical model. In its place, a harder secular model would be advocated. Its motto: “Criticize and be damned!”
Fonte: The Chronicle of Higher Education – November 10, 2006
E os Estudos Bíblicos na Alemanha? Como vão?
Leia o artigo de Heike Omerzu, da Universidade de Mainz, no site do SBL Forum. Em 2006.
A German Landscape: Currents and Credits of Biblical Studies in Germany during the Past Decades
Before taking stock of German exegesis, I have to restrict my subsequent remarks by overtly stating my individual and subjective perspective on the issue: I am a white, western European, female exegete. To be even more precise, I am a Protestant and I am a New Testament scholar. Therefore, in the following, I will lay my focus on New Testament studies in a German, or better, German-speaking, Protestant context, even if I use the term exegesis without specification. Probably, many observations are adequate to the situation of the whole discipline and of both confessions, anyway. Besides, because of the limitation of time and space, I will have to simplify complex arguments and harmonize competing tendencies.
Germany was not only an important cradle of critical biblical scholarship itself; German exegesis also held a leading position within the international field of the discipline and concurrently participated in general theological or philosophical debates throughout major parts of the twentieth century (e.g., in liberal and dialectical theology). While the situation has changed since then in many respects, German biblical scholarship has only begun to reflect on its fading impact as concerns the international stage as well as broader discourses in theology or the humanities and social-sciences, not to mention general public debates.
The State of Affairs
Most of the research achieved in Germany during the last three or four decades was and still is indebted to historical criticism with its inherent emphasis on philological and historical analyses. Meanwhile, the — if even often controversial and short-lived but nevertheless fruitful — debates on new approaches to biblical studies (arising, e.g., from structuralism, deconstruction or new literary criticism) have almost taken place without German contribution on the level of theory (in contrast, for example, to France, Great Britain, and the United States). Regarding the practice, innovative methods are often adopted, if at all, only in a half-hearted or “domesticated” way and scholars applying them are viewed sceptically. This also pertains to more “established” methods such as feminist or socio-scientific exegesis. More acceptable are literary-critical approaches such as rhetorical, narrative, or reader response criticisms. That alternative methods in Germany are still met with reserve can be illustrated by Martin Hengel’s account of the tasks of New Testament studies on the occasion of his presidential address towards the Societas Novi Testamenti Studiorum in 1993. Here Hengel rejects such new approaches as a “postmodern playground,” resulting in an “anything goes” defamiliarization of biblical texts. Their arbitrariness made them inadequate tools for the interpretation of the venerable “book of books.”[1] Instead, Hengel claims that the only appropriate way to understand the alétheia tou euaggeliou (1 Cor 15:11), the permanent truth of the Christian Kerygma, is to reveal what the New Testament author has meant and what he wanted to express with respect to his audience, his hearers and readers.[2] Though most German biblical scholars will not share this extreme author-centered position any longer, in his conservative disposition and the implicit devaluation of new trends as superficial and transient,[3] Hengel is nevertheless representative of a predominant inclination.
This conservative tendency does not only affect methodological aspects but also important issues or debates in research (e.g., the Third Quest for the historical Jesus and the New Perspective on Paul). Both are international discourses, yet mainly conducted in English and, in contrast, for example, to Scandinavia, with rather few initiative contributions by German-speaking scholars (exceptions are Gerd Theißen, Wolfgang Stegemann, and Michael Bachmann). If the results of these debates are reflected at all, this often happens with a considerable delay and from a rather sceptical point of view. Finally, though New Testament studies claims its position within the canon of theological disciplines, it has only little impact on general theological debates and exegetical research does not affect discussions within the church or in academic and public discourse.
When and Why?
But what are the reasons for this development? Let me try to suggest at least some answers. Thomas H. Olbricht has recently designated the time up to the First World War (1900-1915) as the “Germanic Period” of biblical interpretation.[4] Considering only the impact of the Form and Redaktionsgeschichte methods of Martin Dibelius and Rudolf Bultmann (including also Hans Conzelmann and Ernst Haenchen), as well as the contributions of Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann to wider theological discussions, it is evident that German exegesis at least exerted an important influence until the end of, and some time after, World War II. Even if Germany no longer held the leading position, it still maintained a significant role in international exegesis as well as in systematic theological and philosophical discourses.
The years 1933 through 1945 severely shocked everyone, including biblical scholars. This resulted in an increased sensibility for a centuries-old tradition of anti-Jewish readings of the New Testament that were also supported by biblical scholars, not only German ones. Yet, corresponding to the larger political developments and the altered power relations after World War II, the higher critical agenda originating among, and having been dominated by, German exegetes became more and more disputed. The emancipation, especially of North American exegesis, from a German biblical-exegetical hegemonic hold was surely facilitated by English becoming the lingua franca of the scientific world. Thus, it is symptomatic of the current situation that a growing number of particularly American scholars only possess a basic knowledge of German while simultaneously the amount of German exegetical research translated into English is decreasing. Is Wolfgang Stegemann really right in blaming German exegesis for its provinciality and therefore entitling his account on the condition of New Testament studies: “America, du hast es besser!” (America, you are better off!)?[5] Is Anglo-American exegesis really at an advantage compared to Germany?
I suggest not. At least it seems as if those on the other side of the sea are not on the safe side either. This impression is corroborated by various recent observations by international scholars. Independent of their different backgrounds, implications and aims, there seems to be a general consensus that the main reasons for the current — poor — state of our discipline is related to the globalization and pluralization of society (or societies). In 1997, for example, Ulrich Luz devoted his presidential address to the SNTS group on the topic “The tasks of exegesis in a religiously pluralistic society.”[6] Only a few months later, Larry Hurtado gave his inaugural lecture on “New Testament Studies at the Turn of the Millennium: Questions for the Discipline”[7] in Edinburgh. Hurtado argued that “the pluralising of our society (…) makes it even more important and relevant for the scriptural texts of the Christian faith to be a university subject.”[8] One of the latest assessments has been presented by the SNTS president of 2004, Wayne Meeks,[9] who arrives at a rather similar assessment.
Given these other non-German assessments of the situation, one could conclude that Germany simply participates in a “global crisis” of exegesis. And there is some truth to that. But, coming back to Wolfgang Stegemann’s longing look at America and his plea for methodical innovations, one must also assert that new methods are not per se fruitful (here Hengel is right), even though they do at least foster debates on methodology. While some scholars, such as Stanley Porter, have recently characterized the problems of North American exegesis as being caused by “fragmentation” and “multiformity” on account of too much theory, Germany’s crisis is, in my perception, mostly due to a lack of theory (i.e., of methodological and hermeneutical reflection). So aside from the general “global situation,” there is also a more specific cultural aspect to this matter.
On Our Way Out
As already noted, for the past decade or so a debate on the present state and on future perspectives of New Testament studies has been going on in Germany. Contributions to this discussion come, besides from those exegetes already mentioned, from scholars …such as Stefan Alkier, Christof Landmesser, Eckhart Rein-muth, Jens Schröter, and Oda Wischmeyer.[10] An important stimulus of the debate is the growing discontent with the fact that the various exegetical methods, old and new, historical-critical and literary, diachronic and synchronic, are usually employed additively and without integration into a theoretical concept of text interpretation. Such an overlooked but strongly demanded text theory does not only have to consider the epistemological, linguistic, and philosophical presuppositons of each single method, but it also has to reflect the conditions of understanding and interpretation of texts in general. Fundamental to this striving for a theory of text-comprehension are the insights associated with the term “linguistic turn,” which originated in various intellectual movements (e.g., analytical philosophy, structuralism) and was adopted in the humanities in the 1970s. Decisive for the linguistic turn is the recognition of language as structuring thought and constructing reality. There is no direct relation between the world created by, and in, a text and the non-linguistic reality to which it refers.
The question for the conditions of the comprehension of linguistic utterances relates (at least) back to the hermeneutics of Friedrich Schleiermacher for whom interpretation required the reconstruction of meaning. This has been refined by modern text linguistics and discourse studies, which characterize interpretation as a process involving producer/author, recipient, and text alike, yet still laying a strong emphasis on the reader. Very influential in this respect were the concepts of Wolfgang Iser, featuring the idea of an implicit reader, and of Umberto Eco, featuring the idea of a model reader. Both pay special attention to the active part of the reader in the act of interpretation. This cooperation (cf. Eco: “la cooperazione interpretativa”) does not necessarily imply a conscious interaction, yet it does suggest permanent decisions as regards the actualization of specific aspects of the “cultural encyclopaedia” of the reader. This encyclopaedic competence is, for instance, performed when deciding between different possible grammatical or semantic choices a text offers and when filling gaps in the text. However, while this presupposition facilitates a pluralization of interpretation, it does not result in arbitrary perspectives, because every realization is restricted by certain predispositions of the text itself.
Turning to the German scholars mentioned above, while Wischmeyer explicitly defines her exegetical approach as text hermeneutics, Landmesser primarily seeks, by means of philology, to develop the “linguistic potential” of the New Testament texts. Alkier is predominantly engaged in semiotics and the ethics of interpretation, and Schröter (in a similar way but interwoven with postmodern issues in a more general mode, also Reinmuth) seems to envisage an even broader project by linking current insights of linguistics and theory of history. Schröter wants to strengthen ties between text, reality, and history, the junction being the idea of a (moderate) constructivism with its fundamental assumption that humans have no access to any ontic reality, but that all reality is dependent on knowledge and thus subject to construction. Adopting the above-mentioned linguistic perspectives, Schröter holds that the New Testament writings are comparable with any other text as they all constitute reality via the medium of language. But language does not only structure our access to, and perception of, reality, it also mediates between past and present. Drawing among others on the works Paul Ricoeur and Hayden White, Schröter emphasizes the constructive character of history in general, including early Christian history and our own perceptions of it. Thus, the quest for origins has to be regarded as a cultural construction as well. Faction and fiction, history and historiography, cannot be split up. The establishment of relations in meaning is an important prerequisite for the reception of the past, and meaning is not inherent to facts and reality but has to be created by interpretation. Thus, like all other historical texts, the early Christian writings describe the reality they relate to in a selective and interpretative way. But if we can acquire the past only in the mode of fictionality, Schröter demands as a necessary consequence that the question for the truth of history must not be identified and mixed up with that of its verification.
In short, it is in these newer hermeneutical developments in Germany that I see some significant hope for a renewed German-speaking contribution to the field of biblical studies and for a possible way out of the current state of isolation we are facing.
Concluding Remarks
It is not only generally to be welcomed that a discussion on theory has been inaugurated in German exegesis, but also that these efforts seek for an integral connection between exegesis and hermeneutics. An integrative theory that considers both the creative act of text interpretation, necessarily including, alongside an appropriation of the first century “encyclopaedia,” the critical historical and philological skills that Hengel rightly, even if too one-sidedly, demands and the idea of the constructive character of history, appears to be a promising way out of the isolation of German exegesis. Of course, I’m not promoting here a return to German hegemony, but rather a move to “interdisciplinary” and “international” discourse and exchange. The constructive notion of reality and history draws on international discourses in literary studies, linguistics, historical, and philosophical sciences, and thus may inaugurate debates within the theological context as well as with non-theological partners. If all reality is linguistically mediated, this is also true for the biblical texts. As a consequence, we can only strive for an adequate interpretation, but not for the one and only true one, a point that is critically relevant in the debate within theology, national, and international. If there is no direct connection between the signs of a text and the designated non-linguistic reality, the biblical texts just provide one possible interpretation of reality. This recognition opens the space for dialogues with other, non-theological disciplines on the basis of a rational, negotiable methodological basis. Theology can then be an autonomous partner in the discourse on competing drafts of interpretation of the world, of history and reality.
Regarding the public eye, the idea of the constructive nature of reality and history may in fact be appealing precisely because it corresponds so well to our every day experiences. Our co-operation is asked everywhere — in the super market, at the cash machine, when having a coffee break at Starbucks or lunch at Burger King. We book our flights via the internet and print the tickets at the airport. So, why not cooperate in producing meaning?
Time will prove whether these ideas are fruitful. For the moment they offer a discourse and a promising path to be followed. Maybe this path will not lead us to blossoming landscapes; at least it might provide exegesis a place in the global village.
Heike Omerzu, University of Mainz
Notes:
[1] Cf. Martin Hengel, “Aufgaben der Neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft,” New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 337
Tyler Williams mostra como funciona a crítica textual com dois exemplos
Tyler F. Williams, dando prosseguimento à série de posts sobre a crítica textual da Bíblia Hebraica/Antigo Testamento, chega ao post n. 9 que trata da Crítica Textual na Prática, onde diz:Neste post demonstrarei a prática da crítica textual com dois exemplos, Js 1,1 e Sl 73,7, que iluminam a prática da crítica textual externa e interna, respectivamente.
In this post I will demonstrate the practice of textual criticism with two examples, Joshua 1:1 and Psalm 73:7, which highlight the practice of external and internal textual criticism, respectively.
This is the ninth post in a series on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Other posts include:
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible – An Introduction (TCHB 1)
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Resources (TCHB 2)
Hebrew Witnesses to the Text of the Old Testament (TCHB 3)
Early Versions of the Hebrew Bible (TCHB 4)
Codex Sinaiticus: A Profile (TCHB 5)
The History of the Biblical Text (TCHB 6)
The Goal(s) of Textual Criticism (TCHB 7)
The Practice of Textual Criticism (TCHB 8 )
Como identificar e avaliar variantes quando se faz crítica textual da Bíblia Hebraica
Tyler F. Williams, professor de Antigo Testamento/Bíblia Hebraica no Taylor University College em Edmonton, Alberta, Canadá, em seu biblioblog Codex, dá prosseguimento à série de posts sobre a crítica textual da Bíblia Hebraica/ Antigo Testamento.
Clique aqui primeiro para ver as 7 postagens anteriores e depois leia o post abaixo, o de número oito, publicado no dia 30 de julho. E deve vir mais por aí…
8. A prática da crítica textual
Neste post discutirei mais especificamente como identificar e avaliar variantes para a reconstrução da Ur-edition (= edição mais antiga, mais próxima possível do original)…
Quer saber mais sobre a crítica textual da Bíblia Hebraica?
Tyler F. Williams, professor de Antigo Testamento/Bíblia Hebraica no Taylor University College em Edmonton, Alberta, Canadá, em seu biblioblog Codex, vem escrevendo uma série de posts sobre a crítica textual da Bíblia Hebraica/Antigo Testamento.
O primeiro texto foi publicado no dia 19 de junho e o sétimo ontem, 24 de julho de 2006. Veja todos os posts desta interessante série clicando em Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.
Tyler F. Williams diz no primeiro post:
I figured I would do a few posts on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, including some discussion of method and manuscripts, some examples, and available resources to aid the student in doing some text criticism. These posts will be based on my research, some of my class lectures as well as an article I wrote with Bruce Waltke a number of years back.
Veja abaixo o assunto de cada post.
1. Crítica textual da Bíblia Hebraica – Uma Introdução
Este primeiro post mostrará a necessidade da crítica textual da Bíblia Hebraica. Mas, antes disso, eu deveria definir o que é “crítica textual”….
2. Recursos para a crítica textual da Bíblia Hebraica
Há um grande número de recursos para os interessados em aprender mais sobre a crítica textual da Bíblia Hebraica. Talvez seja interessante começar com algumas introduções à crítica textual…
3. Testemunhos hebraicos para o texto do Antigo Testamento
Uma das primeiras tarefas de quem faz crítica textual é verificar as variantes existentes nos diferentes testemunhos do texto da Bíblia Hebraica. Este post tratará de alguns destes testemunhos hebraicos do texto…
4. Versões antigas da Bíblia Hebraica
Este post continua a pesquisa sobre os testemunhos do texto do Antigo Testamento, focalizando, agora, as versões mais antigas da Bíblia Hebraica…
5. O Codex Sinaítico: um perfil
O Codex Sinaítico (designado pela sigla א ou S) foi descoberto no século XIX por Constantine von Tischendorf no Mosteiro de Santa Catarina, no Sinai (daí o seu nome). É uma das mais antigas cópias da Bíblia Cristã em grego…
6. A história do texto bíblico
Este post descreverá um pouco da história da transmissão do texto da Bíblia Hebraica…
7. O(s) objetivo(s) da crítica textual
Nos últimos anos surgiu um significativo debate sobre o objetivo da crítica textual. Tradicionalmente dizia-se que o seu objetivo era simplesmente reconstruir o texto original do Antigo Testamento. Com a descoberta dos Manuscritos do Mar Morto, tornou-se evidente que este objetivo não é tão simples como parecia antes. Este post trata do objetivo – ou, talvez, dos objetivos – da crítica textual…