When is theology "biblical"?—Some reflections

Abstract

In contrast to the ongoing hermeneutical discussions of "biblical theology," this article looks at some theological studies in order to find out how "biblical" theology can be. They are not representative, but merely chosen to gauge the flow. Obviously the role of Scripture as norma normans, or as the "soul of theology," is expressed in quite different ways. The perspectives of exegetes and of dogmatic theologians produce a wide variety in theological writings. The examples also challenge readers to examine their own use of Scripture, whatever be the level of discourse, academic or pastoral.

**********

In some sense, Christian theology is necessarily biblical. As the Constitution on Revelation ([section] 24) of Vatican II put it, "the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of theology" (Fitzmyer 1994). Is the metaphor of "soul" appropriate in the praxis of theology today? The relationship between Scripture and theology is too subtle to be solved by "ten principles" proposed in a recent publication; there are no theological Queensbury rules. Doctrine/theology and Bible interact with each other. There is a certain reciprocity; biblical interpretation shapes doctrine, and doctrine shapes interpretation of the Bible. It is difficult to describe this mutual influence, and much more so to say what it should be. A wide variety of approaches exists among theologians themselves. In a necessarily brief examination, this essay looks at three representative theologians. Not all theologians can be lumped together, for different visions of biblical usage exist. In that spirit, the question is asked: when (to what extent, by what means, for what purpose) is theology "biblical"?

One theologian, in a discussion of method, has described an "a priori" at work:

   All theologians operate from fundamental biases or dispositions
   toward the issue [i.e., which is being addressed]. If they
   are at all systematic, they approach the subject matter from
   a holistic, imaginative, and theological conception of the
   nature of Christianity. The question of the most adequate
   method is frequently decided in a circular way. Theologians
   rarely choose a method and, following it to its conclusion,
   learn for the first time the position they hold. Rather, the
   method is chosen from a fundamental conviction, attitude,
   insight, or position on the problem, and following the
   method through allows the more or less full rationale of the
   position to come forward [Haight: 201].

This description may be debatable and not appropriate for many theologians, but it serves as a wake-up call, underscoring assumptions and presuppositions that inevitably affect theological judgment.

At least two broad limits, the Bible and the theological conclusion or dogma, can be discerned--a beginning and an end, so to speak. Thus, one can begin with exegesis of biblical passages and work out from there, usually employing experience and/or a philosophy of some kind, to reach a theological conclusion (G. Lohfink). It is probably more common that the Bible functions rather as a guide, providing data of exegesis or themes of biblical theology (Murphy). This guidance functions in a secondary way, in that a theologian retroactively, as it were, draws on biblical data for support. But the conclusion has not been reached directly by biblical exegesis. Trinitarian theology serves as an example. The New Testament is the seed-bed for such theology; it leaves unsolved the problem of the relationship of various "divine" terms, such as son of God, spirit, etc. These came to expression in the doctrine of the Trinity that emerged from the early councils. Theological reasoning did not take this much further. Later writings were directed not so much by new biblical interpretations as by long accepted conciliar traditions, and inspired, too, by philosophical reasoning. The role of the Bible became largely confirmatory; a given theological conclusion does not contradict, or is at least it is in harmony with, biblical data. With few exceptions, this seems to be a fair characterization of the documents issued by the ITC (International Theological Commission; see Sharkey; later publications must be culled from ORIGINS). If the topic is directly christological, of course, the Bible will play a more conspicuous role. But in most cases the argumentation proceeds within a framework prompted by the magisterium of the Church, rather than directly by the Bible. Then, too, the ITC Documents are intended, not as scholarly treatises, but as summaries, and the role of the Bible is faint or perhaps presupposed.

Some forty years ago the relationship between Bible and dogma was very much alive, especially among European theologians, but at present there seems to be little interest in it. Karl Rahner (1966) recognized the tension between exegetes and theologians and addressed both parties in a famous article in 1961. Even in that unsettled period he raised questions worthy of further development in an explicit treatment of the Old Testament and dogmatic theology: henotheism, nationalism, salvation history (1979). Still, it is clear that there was more concern about specifically Christian doctrines than about the exegesis of biblical passages.