Historical research into the biblical text is considered
by some to be the hallmark for proving (conservatives) or disproving (liberals)
its credibility. Others argue that history can’t play any role at all because this
would force outside criteria onto the biblical text and therefore undermine the
text itself. It seems to me that the viewpoints of the some and of the others
are unhelpful polarizations. While the biblical text is not a categorically
straight forward historical document, it does have an historical impulse. This
means using the text to prove or disprove something or someone misses the mark because
it’s not that kind of text, yet to abandon a limit testimony to
what once was cuts it off from its cultural, social, political, and theological
repertoire, which is part and parcel of its textuality.
0 comments:
Post a Comment