“‘Proper’ Scriptures or ‘Just’ Biblical Theology?

”
A Case for Biblical Theology as the Preferential Option for Biblical Studies
in the Church

For long has a Licentiate in Biblical Theology been considered a solace, a

sort of compensation for those not adequately brilliant to gain admission for
a Licentiate in Sacred Scriptures from the prestigious Pontifical Biblical
University (Biblicum). “Are you going to study ‘proper’ Scriptures or ‘just’
Biblical Theology?” was a question this writer frequently got when moving
to Rome for studies. In our circles, the adage “proper Scriptures” colloquially
referred to studies at the Biblicum. Naturally, a Licentiate from the Biblicum
is not for the faint hearted. It involves years of intellectual grinding and
mastery of Hebrew, Greek and even other Ancient Near Eastern Languages.
The contribution in terms of biblical studies as well as churning out scholarly
giants is remarkable and its prestige well earned. Relatively Biblical
Theology is a new discipline and has not actually been able to capture as
much popular imagination or attention. As a result, widespread knowledge
and interest in Biblical Theology is relatively low and it is often considered
a secondary option to studies at the Biblicum. There is also a perception that
it is relatively easier to attain a Licentiate in Biblical Theology than in Sacred
Scriptures (Biblicum), which is not entirely true.
On the contrary, as per my personal experience, Biblical Theology is an
underrated discipline in ecclesiastical circles. It offers a different approach
to the Sacred Scriptures, one far more preferable and useful from a faith
perspective. Whereas, the studies at the Biblicum focus on a ‘historical’
study of the Sacred Scriptures, i.e., its value as an ancient human document,
its sources, its form and its reliability from a historical and archaeological
viewpoint, Biblical Theology, as the name suggests, focuses on drawing
theology (or theologies) out of Scriptural texts and is concerned more with
the ‘content’ of the Scriptures than its form.
A few months into my studies, I discovered that Biblical Theology would
be much more valuable for me personally in my own spiritual and pastoral
life as a priest than a ‘historical study’ of the same texts. I also do suppose,
the same would be the case for all priests, religious and lay theologians who
are involved in the preaching and teaching ministry of the Church; or any
other ministry based on the interpretation of the Scriptures. This fact has
been highlighted already in 1994 by the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s
document, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, in which it instructs
catholic exegetes to move beyond historical criticism and engage with the
theological disciplines:
 In their work of interpretation Catholic exegetes must never forget that what
they are interpreting is the word of God. Their common task is not finished when
they have simply determined sources, defined forms or explained literary
procedures. They arrive at the true goal of their work only when they have
explained the meaning of the biblical text as God's word for today. To this end
they must take into consideration the various hermeneutical perspectives which
help toward grasping the contemporary meaning of the biblical message and
which make it responsive to the needs of those who read Scripture today.
Exegetes should also explain the Christological, canonical and ecclesial
meanings of the biblical texts (PBC, The Interpretation of the Bible in the
Church, III.C.1).
“Grasping and explaining the meaning of the biblical text” is itself the task
of Biblical Theology. Although it begins with exegesis aided by historical
study, it goes beyond by analysing the information derived from the exegesis
and reconstructing the meaning of the passage and then even further to derive
the theological, Christological and other implications of that information in
order to nurture the faith life of the Church as mentioned above. Given this
task, from the catechetical, spiritual, liturgical, theological and faith
perspective of the Church, Biblical Theology is far more important and
valuable than the historical studies of Sacred Scriptures. In this article, I
would like to make a case for Biblical Theology as the preferred option to
which more ecclesiastical personnel need to be promoted and trained in in
order to make the Sacred Scriptures more accessible and nourishing to the
faith life of all members of the Church.

The Historical Critical Method and its Critique

In our seminaries we have all come across the Historical Critical Method
as the go to method when it comes to Biblical interpretation. This method
has dominated biblical scholarship for over two centuries now. The focus of
this method is to analyse the biblical texts as if they were human documents
of the past (historical) and to find the ‘literal sense’ in them so as to free them
of any dogmatic reading. The phrase historical studies wherever used in this
article means exactly this. Traces of this method could be found in the
Antiochian school which emphasised on the literal sense of biblical texts
over the allegorical reading of the Alexandrian school (An often-cited
example of allegorical reading is the reading of Israel’s battle against
Amalekites in Exodus 17:8-13 as a battle of God’s people against
temptations of lust). In its modern form, the Historical Critical method was
developed and propagated by Protestant Reformers in their attempt to
interpret scriptures without recourse to any external authority like the
Magisterium (sola scriptura). In the following years, many academicians of
different faith backgrounds, including atheists in large numbers used this

2
method to credit or discredit the the Sacred Scriptures. Catholic exegetes
were hesitant at first to jump on the wagon and most did so only after Pope
Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu was published allowing for a
historical study of the Scriptures. The Constitution on Divine Revelation of
the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, further encouraged these
endeavours (cf. DV 12).
Historical criticism consists of several branches which include source
criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition criticism, and radical
criticism. These radically changed our understanding of the Scriptures and
to an extent also shook the foundations of Christian and Jewish faiths. A
noteworthy discovery was that of the Documentary Hypothesis, perfected
and published by Julius Wellhausen, according to which, Moses was not the
“author” of the Pentateuch. According to this hypothesis, the Pentateuch was
a work of different redactors, known as the Jahwist (J), Elohist (E),
Deuteronomist (D) and the Priestly (P) who contributed at different stages
and times spanning several centuries. It must be noted that, as the name
suggests, it is a “hypothesis”, but in the following years, the academic world
was able to build up a whole biblical scholarship upon the foundation of this
hypothesis, while pretending that it was a well-established theory. More
shocks followed when the authorship of the gospels and some letters of Paul
were also challenged. Further, lack of archaeological evidences to biblical
stories suggested that most biblical stories were hyped up myths and
exaggerations. All of these shocks contributed to a crisis of faith both for
Protestants and Catholics alike. Even the Historical Jesus reconstructed by
scholars in no way resembled the Christ of Faith known to Christians for
centuries. This crisis of faith has been best captured by one the most
renowned Catholic scholar of our times, Joseph Ratzinger (Late Pope
Benedict XVI) in the Foreword to his first book in the series Jesus of
Nazareth, where he mentions that the very purpose of his writing the series
was to restore the ‘face’ of Christ disfigured by the historical critical method.
As historical-critical scholarship advanced, it led to finer and finer distinctions
between layers of tradition in the Gospels, beneath which the real object of faith
– the figure [Gestalt] of Jesus – became increasingly obscured and blurred. […]
Since then there has been growing skepticism about these portrayals of Jesus,
but the figure of Jesus himself has for that very reason receded even further into
the distance.
All these attempts have produced a common result: the impression that we have
very little certain knowledge of Jesus and that only at a later stage did faith in
his divinity shape the image we have of him. This impression has by now
penetrated deeply into the minds of the Christian people at large. This is a
dramatic situation for faith, because its point of reference is being placed in

3
 doubt: Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger
of clutching at thin air. (Joseph Ratzinger/ Pp. Benedict XVI, “Foreword”, Jesus
of Nazareth, Vol. 1, 2006).
Pope Benedict’s criticism of historical critical exegetes is well known. His
jibe of describing the ‘Antichrist as a famous exegete with doctorate from
Tubingen’ quoting Wladimir Solowjew during the 1988 Erasmus Lectures is
still fresh in academic memories (see J. Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in
Crisis”, The Erasmus Lectures, New York 1988). But no other analogy
explains the HC method’s undoing of Christian faith than that of a student
fascinatingly watching a watch-mechanic open up a complex analogous
watch and explaining the working of the wheels and levers. The fascinated
student then asks the mechanic to put back all the pieces together again and
show how it works together as a unit. However, the student has to be satisfied
with the mechanic’s answer that he is unable to put it together and that such
a thing would then be outside his field of study.

Early Pushback and New Developments

It was only natural that such a development would invite pushbacks from
theologians faithful to traditional teachings of the Church. Two types of
responses evolved. One which saw the new developments as totally evil and
worthy of being banned. These then reemphasised the traditional standings
including Mosaic authorship of the Torah. However, as more evidences and
studies tumbled out, these push backs could not withstand the onslaught.
However, there was a second reaction that seemed reasonable and
acceptable. As pastors and church leaders found it difficult to reconcile the
faith experience of the faithful based on the Bible as Word of God and the
scientific findings that emphasise its human origins, Christian theologians
had to find a solution. Already at the beginning of the twentieth century, the
likes of Karl Barth, worried that their theological education did not equip
them well for preaching, sought after a different method which emphasising
on the theological and faith aspects. Yet, despite all attempts, the historical
study was so dominant and powerful that it could not be outdone. The
resultant tension now produced this dichotomy as already hinted above.
Jesus Christ was now torn between the ‘Jesus of history’ and the ‘Christ of
Faith’, proposing that as a historical figure, Jesus was a totally different
person, probably a freedom fighter against the Romans, while the ‘Christ of
Faith’ is a reality constructed by the disciples and/or the first generation of
believers. Pastors would now seek after the ‘Jesus of history’ in their
academic investigations while still preaching the ‘Christ of faith’ in their
parishes.

4
Collapse of the Historical Critical Method
Everything that has a beginning, has an end, or so is the law of life. With
no external challenges to the HC method, the method finally had to fall under
its own weight. Here I would like to demonstrate the so called ‘collapse of
the HC method’, without getting into technicalities, with the help of two
examples: one, the disintegration of the Documentary Hypothesis in the
studies of the Pentateuch and two, the question of Johannine authorship.
The Documentary Hypothesis, as we have seen earlier, had challenged the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch by positing four distinct later redactors,
JEDP. However, problems started when the four underwent further divisions
resulting in a number of sources and redactors (e.g., J 1, J2, P1, P2, JE, RJ, RE,
RJE, etc.) confusingly posited to relate to one another. Then slowly works
started to appear challenging the very existence of any of the four sources.
The Elohist source was challenged and deleted first, followed by the Jahwist.
Today, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly stand, but on shaky grounds.
To add to the above reasons, the very foundation of the Documentary
Hypothesis has also been challenged. For example, the different ways in
which God was addressed (YHWH or Elohim or YHWH Elohim) in
different accounts or the various repetitions of accounts such as the creation
and flood stories, etc. had been a base for positing the hypothesis. But now,
many reasonable explanations for the interchanged use of the name of God
have emerged out of a Narrative Critical reading of the texts (See for
example, chapter 2 and 3 of Umberto Cassuto’s The Documentary
Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch. Eight Lectures,
Jerusalem 1961). The repetition in the creation and flood stories, the wife-
sister narratives, etc. are now considered as a literary device employed by
the final author rather than copy-pasted versions put together haphazardly by
a ‘final redactor’ (see Robert Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative, New
York 1981).
Notice also, how the word ‘author’ is used in the last sentence over
‘redactor’. This use of the word ‘author’ is however nuanced. It is not to say
that one author wrote each and every sentence and story in the modern sense
of the word. Rather, it means that the final redactor, is not a ‘mere redactor’
but an intelligent writer who skilfully weaved together previously existing
stories by employing literary devices in order to convey a specific message,
or in academic language, a ‘theology’. It is this theology that now needs to
be unveiled by the student of biblical theology.
Another quick example can be that of the question of the authorship of the
books bearing the name of John. There have been theories that posited
different authors, different Johns actually, as being responsible for the books.
However, a deeper study has revealed common themes, expressions and

5
sentence structures underlying all the Johannine books that we do not see in
any other book of the New Testament. Some of the themes include
‘Logos/Word of God’ (Jn 1,1-3.14; 1Jn 1,2; Rev 19,13) and ‘Lamb of God’
(Jn 1,29.36; Rev 5,6ff.). Some common phrases include ‘write to the
Church/es’, ‘descend from heaven’, ‘listen to my voice’ etc. For more of
such similarities, one may refer the article by Giorgio Marcato, “Ricerche
sulla “Scuola Giovannea”” (Researches on the ‘Johannine School’), Ang. 75
(1998) 305-331. According to his analysis:
Philological, phraseological, structural and theological analysis clearly reveals
in Jn, 1-3 Jn, Rev, the existence of a common terminology, the use of similar,
sometimes even identical, typical formulae, which can be found and verified at
all levels of the Johannine corpus. In order to explain such profound similarities,
at every level, it is inevitable to postulate a common inspirational mind, which
lies at the basis of the ‘Johannine school’, or better still, the presence of a great
prophetic and apostolic personality, which can only be the Apostle John.
(Giorgio Marcato, “Ricerche sulla “Scuola Giovannea””, 330).
However, as later scholars like M. Hengel and R. Brown totally exclude
the authorship of the apostle John and posit a later ‘presbyter’ John, scholars
still hold that there was only one ‘author’ who had multiple secretaries and
editors working under him at different stages, together called the ‘Johannine
school’ and that the apostle St. John was indeed the inspiration (and author?)
behind the school and its scriptural output. In other words, these new studies
highlight that the traditional wisdom that connected the Johannine books
with one another is not an entirely pious or spiritual construct as the historical
critical scholars had initially proposed.

New Methods and Prospects

One of the main causes for the collapse of the Historical Critical method
was the advent of postmodernism in the aftermath of the Second World War.
Postmodernism brought about a movement from uniformity to plurality and
multiformity, from the centre to the peripheries. It oversaw the collapse of
‘one central structure’ and the rise of ‘several peripheral structures’ in its
stead. In geopolitics it saw the collapse of absolute European hegemony and
the rise of Asian powers. In art it saw the collapse of one classical style and
an embrace of multiple styles with different framework. In theology,
liberation theology, feminist and Dalit theology challenged mainstream
scholastic theology. Whether these changes were good or bad is another
question. In some cases, they have been good, in others, probably bad. But
the point to the noted is that all these collapses of mainstream structures were
largely due to the socio-political changes in the post-war period. Lack of trust

6
in political institutions, fast pace of life spurred by technological innovations,
insecurities of life, consumerism, etc.
All of these changes would also influence Scriptural interpretation. The
once dominant Historical Critical method was now challenged. New
methods of biblical interpretations like the Narrative Analysis, Rhetorical
method and Discourse Analysis methods began to replace it. As new studies
emerged following these methods, new insights emerged out of the Biblical
text that was not only much more fascinating, but also seemed to offer much
more meaning to the reader at a deeper level. No longer was the biblical text
seen as the work of an inexperienced editor who randomly and haphazardly
copied and pasted texts from various sources, but as the work of a brilliant
author who skilfully arranged the stories and human experiences collected
from various oral traditions into a literary masterpiece that inspires humans
to this very day. For an example, one could browse through Robert Alter’s
The Art of Biblical Narrative, cited above, which was a big breakthrough in
biblical research. He followed it up with another well written work, The Art
of Biblical Poetry in 1985, which he claims in his 2011 revised edition to
‘still hold together’. Such works highlight the beauty of the biblical text and
complexity of the biblical author’s skill who can paint in the mind of readers
of any era, characters like Moses and David, battles scenes such as those in
found in Exodus and Joshua as well as immortal dramatic scenes of David
and Goliath, Solomon and the Queen of Sheeba, captivating dialogue
deliveries such as “You are that man!” by the prophet Nathan, etc. It goes
without saying that the Old Testament in its original language, Hebrew, is a
literary masterpiece. The same is true with the Gospel writers as well as
Pauline letters in which hitherto undiscovered meanings and nuances were
uncovered by the Rhetorical Analysis method. Altogether, these methods
restored the dignity, beauty and trustworthiness of the Scriptures which was
deformed by the Historical Critical method. Today, this once dominant
method is still widely used, but exegetes are more aware where to draw the
line. As noted by Guido Benzi:
The historical-critical method – although important and essential for a correct
interpretation – is no longer hegemonic in theological exegesis but finds in
literary and rhetorical methods (which favour the text itself) and contextual
methods (which favour the single reader or community) a valid corrective for
some of its absolutizing claims. (Guido Benzi, “Biblical Theologies or Biblical
Theology? A Multiform Identity” (orig. Italian), Parola Spirita e Vita 80, 2019,
23).

7
The Case for Biblical Theology
Now that the beauty, wonder, dignity, mystery and trustworthiness of the
Sacred Scriptures has been preserved, the next challenge is to rediscover
what the biblical texts have to convey to the reader. At the end of the day,
the worth of any object in the universe is determined by the value it brings
in the life of humans, and this includes even writings that claims divine
inspiration. Here we refer back to the Biblical Commission document cited
above which reminds ‘Catholic exegetes’ not to forget that what they are
interpreting is the ‘word of God’ and that their task is not finished with
determining sources, rather that their true aim is achieved only when ‘they
have explained the meaning of the biblical text as God’s word for today’.
This is particularly important, since this is one big difference between the
approach of biblical theology and that of the historical studies aka what
popular imagination calls ‘proper’ Scriptural studies. In other words, Biblical
Theology’s approach to the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God is one of
its salient features that render it the preferential option for scriptural studies
in ecclesial circles rather than the historical studies.
1. The Scriptures is the Word of God
Biblical Theology approaches the Scriptures not as an antique human
literary document, but as the ‘revealed and living Word of God. Hence, the
task of Biblical theology is not to determine its various sources or its history.
Rather, it uses that historical critical information to determine the meaning
and relevance of the text/s under consideration and its significance for the
life of Christians today. In other words, with the exegetical information, the
biblical theologian enters into dialogue with the various disciplines of
Theology like Christology, Pneumatology, Ecclesiology, Mariology etc. as
well as even Moral Theology and Ethics.
But at the same time, the biblical theologian does not forget that this
Divine Revelation is expressed in human words, which have limitations
imposed by language, socio-cultural, political and historical contexts. It is
aspect, the biblical theologian again enters into dialogue with the historical
studies to explore the meaning of the texts in their original contexts. But in
all these pursuits, the biblical theologian ensures that the dignity of the
Biblical text as Divine Revelation is maintained.
2. The Sense of Mystery is preserved
Considering the Scriptures as the Word of God, Biblical Theology
approaches the same with a sense of awe and reverence, knowing full well
that the Scriptures are a treasure house of ‘Mysteries’. Academically
translated, it means that unlike historical studies, Biblical Theology does

8
make absolute claims in its findings. Unlike what many historical critical
exegetes have done in the past, or even continue to do to this day, Biblical
Theology believes that its methods of investigation can never exhaust the
layers of meaning of the biblical texts. The deeper the biblical theologian
enters into the exegetical investigation of the texts and the wider he/she is
willing to engage in dialogue with other related texts as well as theological
disciplines, the larger is the scope of Biblical Theology. Thus, enlarging the
scope and reach of the Word of God, Biblical Theology becomes a vehicle
for revealing Divine Mysteries encompassed in the Scriptural texts.
3. The Old can be seen in the New and vice versa.
Often in our seminaries, we might have had the impression that the
individual books of the bible are isolated islands and that they have no
connection to each other. What Matthew is says is totally disconnected from
John or the Pauline letters. Each text is to be understood only in its immediate
context and has no bearing on the others. As a result, to see the Old
Testament in the New and the New in the Old, is only a ‘spiritual construct’
and not ‘academic’. But Biblical Theology does not support that view. It
believes that the books of the Bible are interconnected by a theology (or
theologies?) that connects them even to the extent of bringing it under one
unified canon. The Old and New Testaments unveil new meanings when
studied in the light of one another. Indeed, Biblical Theology makes it
possible for us to see Christ in the blood of Abel, in the sacrifice of Isaac, in
Melchizedek etc. In this way, it is a study of Biblical Theology rather than
historical study that would nourish our seminarians, our pastoral activities,
our liturgical as well as spiritual lives as it returns to the way the Church has
always seen the Scriptures.
4. Fathers of the Church are still relevant.
The Fathers of the Church were the first biblical theologians. They had a
high regard for the Sacred Scriptures and based their writings on them. They
used to apply the ancient Jewish and Greek methods of interpretation to the
Scriptures to derive meaning. Their main task was to make Christ relevant
to their age, especially after the age of the apostles. They followed in the
footsteps of the New Testament writers and interpreted the Old Testament in
the light of the New and vice versa. If Paul saw in Adam a ‘type’ (typos) for
Christ (Rom 5:14), then the Church Fathers saw in Eve a ‘type’ for Mary,
the New Eve, and in Mary, they saw a ‘type’ for the Church. They would
describe Mary as the ‘Ark of the Covenant’ following John’s symbolism in
Rev 11:19 and 12:1. In general, their writings abounded in typology and
allegory, all the while causing meaning to emerge from the Scriptures for the
benefit of Christians under their care.

9
 However, the writings of these Fathers could not stand the scrutiny of the
Historical Critical Method which pushed them to the background, or, can we
say, even pushed them off the stage of biblical interpretation. However,
Biblical Theology, in as much as it allows for intertestamental readings and
synchronic investigations between the books in the canon, recognises the
contributions of the Church Fathers for having done the same, and once
again, gives them their much-deserved centre stage. But that is not to say that
they are above scrutiny. They are as much under the preview of criticism as
any other theologian. However, Biblical Theology restores to them their fair
space to engage with the modern biblical reader alongside modern exegetes
and theologians.
5. Historical study is not excluded
Having read through the heavy criticism of the Historical Critical Method
through out this article, the reader might be left with the impression that
Biblical Theology stands in opposition to historical study. However, that is
not the case. Biblical Theology begins with exegesis of the Bible for which
the historical critical method contributes a great deal. However, it does not
allow the investigation to end there. Biblical Theology is not satisfied with
knowing if a text belongs to the P source or any other. Its interest lies in
knowing, in the first place, what the author is communicating to the reader
of his time as well as our time, and in the second place, what the Church is
communicating to its faithful by including this biblical author’s work among
the final canon of the scripture.
However, Biblical Theology has to be careful not to allow itself to be
affected by speculative theology prominent in the scholastic times. This is
where the Historical-Critical Method comes to the service of Biblical
Theology. It helps the latter to be rooted to the exegesis of the text. It
challenges Biblical Theology whenever it seems to base itself on dogmatic
foundations. Of course, there is nothing wrong with dogma per se. But the
very foundation of Biblical Theology was to ensure that dogma is to have
biblical foundations and not the other way around. In this direction, historical
studies are still important and relevant. Konrad Schmid would sum up the
unique relationship between these two in the following way, “Theological
exegesis not based on historical work tends towards Gnosticism; historical
exegesis of biblical texts without theological sensitivity often produces
inadequate and unreliable results.” (See K. Schmid, «Sind die Historisch-
Kritischen kritischer geworden? Überlegungen zu Stellung und Potential der
Bibelwissenschaften in der Theologie», in Journal of Biblical Theology
25(2010), 63)

10
Conclusion
In the light of the above propositions, I lay my case before the esteemed
reader that it is Biblical Theology as a discipline which should be more
favoured in seminaries and ecclesiastical circles rather than pure historical
studies of the scriptures. It is Biblical Theology that would nourish the faith
of the Church, give adequate material for homilies for pastors, and make the
Sacred Scriptures more open and accessible to the lay reader. Of course, we
still need Exegetes, but we need many more Biblical Theologians. Biblical
theologians rather than being ‘poor cousins’ of those who study ‘proper’
Scriptures, are an important link in the theological supply chain: Scripture »
Exegesis » Biblical Theology » Dogmatic Theology » Faith of the Church.
Again, Biblical Theology is not in any way a solace for those who are
intellectually less endowed to gain admission to Biblicum. On the other
hand, it could be even more challenging than exegesis and dogmatic theology
put together. The biblical theologian should not only be a master of the
exegetical methods, but also well versed and constantly updated in the
various theological disciplines like Christology, Pneumatology, Mariology,
Ecclesiology, which makes it more difficult. To give an example, the current
Synod on Synodality is of little concern to the exegete, but of much concern
to the biblical theologian who needs to scurry through the Scriptures to look
for any foundation for many of the propositions it is supposed to discuss. All
in all, thus, for a Church that has founded its faith life on the Scriptures,
Biblical Theology should be the preferential option, in that, it must be taught
at baccalaureate level in the seminaries and more priests, religious and lay
theologians should be encouraged to take up this discipline.

Fr. George S. John (Abhayanand) OIC

Pursuing PhD. in Biblical Theology at the
Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome.

11