Well ok, yes I did, a bit. Prooftexting is when you pull out a statement and then offer a list of bible verses to back it up, in brackets. Some essayists actually seem to believe that offering this list actually is what making your essay scriptural means. (There are some terrible examples of published works that do it, the worst in my opinion being Grudem's Systematic Theology - which is a woeful model of how to use Scripture for theology in my opinion).
Why don't I like it?
1. Instead of drawing my attention to the text of Scripture, it actually makes me skip over it and move on. It makes me think I know what the Bible says when I don’t.
2. SO OFTEN, when I look up the verses in a list, they don’t say what the author claims they self-evidently say. Or, they say it in a very, very different way. Or, a subtle point is lost. It makes no allowance for genre, for context, for the difficult work of exegesis and so on.
3. It looks messy. (OK, that’s not so important!)
4. It treats the Bible like a bank of data to be mined, and not a narrative of salvation-history. I would like there to be a ban on the phrase ‘biblical data’. The Bible is NOT data!
5. It means a tendency to prefer ‘direct-statement’ evidence in theological argument over the testimony of say, the character of God revealed in his mighty acts, or the nature of the literary and biblical-theological context.
A great example of this is Is 45:7.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Which apparently looks like it charges God with direct agency in evil. I’ve seen it cited in lists of bible references as a proof text to this end. But this short-cuts an enormously complex and very serious exegetical AND theological discussion which needs to be had… don’t it? What's the biblical-theological context here? To whom is this prophecy addressed? Should we allow for hyperbole here?
What I do instead is that I try to quote the actual words of a particular text, and refer to those. Not without its own difficulties, but I think it is preferable. I have even seen texts from Job's comforters cited in lists of prooftexts - when their views are precisely those being satirised by the book of Job!!
The bottom line is this: you need to show where necessary that you are aware of differences in interpretation - and if necessary, argue for yours.
Things tend to go horribly wrong most often when there is a controversial issue on the table that the student feels they have to defend polemically and aggressively. But your academic essay is not the place for such polemics. You need to show that you have considered the evidence - including the biblical evidence - carefully and maturely. Why have others comes to a different view on the interpretation of the biblical witness?
As a marker, I tend to smell a rat when a student keeps insisting that 'the Bible clearly says' and then simply asserting that it is so on a particular issue without any argument. That isn't to say that their interpretation isn't in fact the best one: but it requires establishing with careful scholarship. For example: there is a lot of heat in the issue of 'hell' (sorry!). But it simply is not the case that the 'conscious eternal torment' position is self-evidently the right one. Annihilationists have made a case for their side from Scripture. And if you want to argue for c.e.t. you have to counter their claims. You can't just shout louder than them, or suggest that they are all soft and deniers of the gospel. That might be true (or not), but they have made a case from the texts that requires serious consideration and careful response (whether to agree or disagree with them).
And that means getting all your bib studs skills out and weilding them. Greek and Hebrew - the works. Look up commentaries. Take into account the genre, the context, and so on. Then bring the text to the table and offer it as evidence for your theological case.
Neither should you indulge in word studies. A word study is a method whereby you take a word that appears in the Bible, and you analyse how it is used there. A valid exercise up to a point of course - although it is worth pointing out that the Bible is an ancient book that uses everyday words, and non-Biblical evidence is necessary to grasp the full range of meanings possible.
But a word study is not theology. Theology deals with concepts. Words of course are component parts of concepts. But just analysing the Biblical words for love, or the instances that you Bible software tells you that agape is used, will not give you a Biblical theology of love. Quite apart from that, it is bad linguistics, because context is always the trump card over the dictionary when it comes to the meaning of words. Next time you hear a skateboarder call something 'sick' or 'wicked' you'll see what I mean.
5 comments:
An interesting article. Thanks, Michael.
I hover between amusement and horror when I remember a couple of students (I had a brief stint as a Church History lecturer) who thought Biblical prooftexting was the way to go in Church History essays, as well. Of course a notation, "Not particularly relevant", in the margin seemed to them to be an attack on their faith.
I'm sure there's a fair bit of walking on eggshells in your field at times. But there's a lot of fun, too: so have some, won't you.
I enjoyed this one! Of course, I'd go further and propose the use of literary structural analysis. In my experience, it solves a lot of these debates. I had a look at Peter's "spirits in prison" recently, and identifying his "stanzas" showed that he changes subjects between the spirits and the days of Noah. But besides that, the big picture stuff is really important, so good on you. Context is really important.
What about 10d. on using theologoumena in theology essays?
How many times might "the unassumed is the unhealed" or "the filial precedes the forensic" or "sufficent for all, efficient for the elect" might be deployed in college essays without adequate investigation of the source, language, context, presuppositions and ramifications of the particular theologumenon?
1. I agree wholeheartedly on your distinction between words and concepts. Nevertheless, as one who has written what is essentially a 'word study', with which you have taken exception, I ask whether you think it is OK or not to use a word study to demonstrate that the Bible authors use a word differently from how many people use the same word today?
2. Are you deliberate in sometimes writing 'Bible' and sometimes 'bible'? (In my view it is a title, and should always be capitalised.)
Hi Michael,
I've been re-reading your blog as I go through my assessments (thank you! Most helpful!) and I was wondering if you reccomend any resources that flesh out a little more theological writing?
Cheers,
Rosey
Post a Comment