Proof-Texting: Everybody Does It!!

 First let's look at two definitions of proof-texting.

"Proof texting is the method by which a person appeals to a biblical text to prove or justify a theological position without regard for the context of the passage they are citing. ... Yet, while the method of proof texting can be problematic, nevertheless theology must still maintain a thoroughly biblical character." (Theopedia) [Missing text is an example of the worst of proof-texting according to the author of this post] Emphasis mine. This post leads to a myriad of explanations about the different problems - there seems to be an agenda behind all of the links, but it still has a lot of useful information about the problems of proof-texting.

"A proof text is a passage of scripture presented as proof for a theological doctrine, belief, or principle. Prooftexting (sometimes "proof-texting" or "proof texting") is the practice of using quotations from a document, either for the purpose of exegesis, or to establish a proposition in eisegesis (introducing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases). Such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author, and a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not support the proposition for which it was cited. The term has currency primarily in theological and exegetical circles." (Wikipedia) I would add the exegesis is far from "value free". 

This is a predominantly Christian issue at this point in time, although in the future, I can see it being applicable to the scholars from other religions who are parsing their own religious texts. From the ultra-conservative to the ultra-liberal, Christian theologians, pastoral counsellors, biblical scholars of all genres, as well as pastors can be accused of proof-texting. It is the nature of the primary text - The Christian Bible (which includes The Hebrew Bible and The Jesus (et al) Bible, as well as the Apocrypha in some forms of Christianity) that causes the problem, of course. It contains myriads of contradictory statements because the texts are from different genres, different time periods, different theological points of view, all of which can create very different understandings of the texts themselves and allow for radically different understandings of the core message of Christianity (if there can even be a core message).

These contradictions have been a problem from the beginning of Christianity. The church fathers were wrestling with this problem. They truly believed that all of the texts were divinely inspired and ultimately determinative for understanding "god's will" for believers. And that all the Scriptures could be harmonized. This was the assumption of Saint Augustine of Hippo, and moving forward to the Reformation period, Jean (John) Calvin to name two theologians who gave it a try. From a humanistic point of view, some of their solutions are dreadfully awful. Just saying!

The problem as I see it is that any "proof from the text", whether regarding "domestic violence" or whether Jesus was "a prophet, an apocalyptic, a fundamentalist, socially progressive or prosperity gospel supporter (see Matt. 25:14-30)" can all be proved and disproved by scriptural texts. Hence the dilemma that Christians find themselves in, particularly those who are trying to change things in the realm of violence - sexual or physical, systemic (war) or individual (gender issues). As long as The Christian Bible is considered to be "the revealed word of god" and it just has to be interpreted correctly, proof-texting will remain the bug-a-boo of Christian theology.  

Here are three of my posts that address this issue in one way or another.

"Suspension of Belief": Just Because It's Difficult, Doesn't Mean You Shouldn't Try, Post-Modernism Be Damned!

There are things that I often ponder.

1. Why do I bother getting into these discussions with believers? I understand getting into these discussions with other academic biblical scholars, but believers? Where is my head? I suppose that old habits die hard; I miss the academic arguments of my Master's and PhD - there is no one where I am now that has any academic biblical historical critical (or for that matter, broad philosophical) training, much less the old style training in the importance to attempt "epoché" in all that one does:

1. Epoché (ἐποχή epokhē, "suspension") is an ancient Greek term which, in its philosophical usage, describes the theoretical moment where all judgments about the existence of the external world, and consequently all action in the world, are suspended.

We used this term to describe what we try to do when we anaylse biblical texts. We divest ourselves as much as possible of our ingrained belief systems and view the texts as if we had never seen them before or heard them interpreted. It comes out of the phenomenological philosophy of Edmund Husserl, described sometimes as phenomenological reductionism.

Why do people think that everyone else's belief affects their translations, but not their own analyses - even when they don't go to the primary sources? Not that there is one definitive ancient Greek, Aramaic, ancient Hebrew text of the different books of the "Christian" Bible. There is no "original". Even if we could lay our hands on the actual original handwritten text of, for example, the Gospel of John, and the written documents of the historical narrative within it (the basis around which many of us agree that the Gospel of John was built) and where it was written, what would, and would not, this tell us:

• for me, the biggest would be the ur-text - what a goldmine that would be (just saying)
• we could follow the changes in the text throughout the western historical tradition more clearly (I can always dream)
• we would have more definitive answers (maybe) about the mindset of the original author
• we would have a greater understanding of the community out of which it came
• we would have greater understanding of the development of the belief system that became Christianity, and it's move away from the Judaisms of the first two centuries
• however, it would tell us nothing about "truth"
• it would not explain whether or not Jesus was divine; it would only tell us that a group of people had ventured further down that murky slope of integrating Greek and Roman mindsets with Jewish mindsets, and then started to argue (rather cautiously, I would suggest) that Jesus was divine

What does it matter, actually, whether the translation is "Jesus (the Word) is "a" god or Jesus (the Word) is god? On such things, heresy is always born. (Gospel of John 1:1-18)

Of course, the caveat is that I don't believe that Jesus was in any way shape or form "god". He was an (Israeli, Jewish, Palestinian, Galilean - take your pick) prophet in a long line of prophets (the Isaiah school/tradition?) . That he spoke "truth to power", I have no doubt. That is, after all, what a prophet did. His tradition led him in a certain way, in much the same way as the Buddha's tradition formed the structure of his dissent with the faith. The one was Jewish, the other Hindu - but they were both men.

Then again, if we're "proof-texting" this, one only has to go to the Gospel of Matthew (at least the ur-text one could say). Matthew 1:1-17 makes it clear that there are 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus. including David and Solomon. So, apparently, Jesus was descended from the kingly line of David biologically. This means that Jesus can only be the biological offspring of Joseph, but wait ....... Of course, shortly thereafter (v. 18 ff) we get the Holy Spirit story of Mary's pregnancy. I don't have time (nor the inclination) to go into the wherefores and whys of biblical criticism on the subject. Suffice it to say that there are plenty of commentaries, articles, and books dealing with the issue, if one were so inclined to follow up on this topic

Then there is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis - I'm not going down that rabbit hole right now - probably later - stay tuned.

Why this post?

1. Triggered by a conversation that I had last night.

2. Avoidance of writing the review of Sacred Witness that has been burning a guilt hole in my mind. It deals with all of these issues.

3. Avoidance of writing the reviews of Ray Donovan that are also burning a hole - but a different kind of hole, more emotional than anything else. The third season has started. I began my post yesterday morning and it sat there all day. It is call "Disconsolate". I wrote a few things, then it kept rolling around in my head - all the things that should go into the post. I just couldn't get around to writing them down - avoidance, emotional pain. Needless to say, but it was a difficult first two episodes. The next two have been easier. It will be up soon.

.

The Personal is Still Political

I just uploaded the speaking document for the paper that I delivered in Amsterdam this summer at the SBL International Meeting in Amsterdam. It is a position paper.I cleaned it up, added a few footnotes.

I had tasked myself the job for the weekend and it's done!! Now to relax with a glass of red wine and an episode of Beauty and the Beast (actually it's not a bad remake!)

It is available at the following: The Personal is Still Political: What else did you expect, or have we forgotten just how radical feminist exegesis can be?

Why I do this

During the question period after my presentation at the SBL International conference in Amsterdam (entitled "The Personal is Still Political: What else did you expect, or have we forgotten just how radical feminist exegesis can be?"), I was asked a question by a very upset and angry participant. In essence, the questions were: "Why did I waste my time on something that I didn't believe in; didn't I have better things to do than rip apart the bible; why didn't I go and spend my time doing something else?" 

So, how to answer? There is the obvious, academic answer: The bible and Christianity are the foundations of western culture in all its good and its bad. Therefore, we have to understand where the structures of our societies' ethical systems, presuppositions about the nature of human interaction, etc. come from. And to do this, we have to look at the bible as the foundational document of Western society. 

That is how I would have answered the question 10 years ago. Two weeks ago, today, I answered quite differently. I just laid it all on the line. A short version: I was sexually abused when I was 8 years old by a Roman Catholic priest, became hyper-religious, spent years in therapy dealing with the biblical god. AND I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO EVER HAVE TO GO THROUGH WHAT I HAVE GONE THROUGH. 

Now I know that that is not going to happen. I don't control the world. The bible is still out there, and that biblical god is still holding sway over people's lives (for one example, just watch Jesus Camp!!) However, by writing what I do, by saying what I say, I make a difference in the lives of a few people. And they have expressed this to me. A whispered "thank you" from a conference participant years ago; a "I never believed anybody else felt like that" from a very distressed woman who came to talk to me (after I gave her the Psalm of Anger to read);  a secondhand thank you from the friend of an incest victim who said that reading "Christian Virtues and Recovery from Child Sexual Abuse" had helped her more than 2 year of therapy. And what I write sometimes forces other academic theologians to think differently about the Christian religious system - see Atonement, Cycles of Abuse, and Virtue, a classroom blog from Duke University. It is discussions like this one that give me hope for a better future.

I won't change the world. However, I have nothing to lose in taking the "extreme" position. The personal is political - my life experience is my life experience - but I am not alone and I am not the only one who has ever felt like this. I am not the only one who has ever suffered from a Christian worldview that blamed me, and not the perpetrator(s) of the crimes committed against me.

If what I say and write makes even one other person's life easier, it is enough.

I will end this blog with yet another quote from Babylon 5: year 1, episode 16:

Mollari: Of course, we do. There's a natural law. Physics tells us that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. They hate us, we hate them, they hate us back. And so here we are - victims of mathematics.
Sinclair: He never listens.
Delenn: He will, sooner or later.
Sinclair: How can you be sure?
Delenn: Because the alternative is too terrible to consider. Without the hope that things will get better; that our inheritors will know a world that is fuller and richer than our own, life is pointless and evolution is vastly overrated.