Foucault makes the point that discourse is not the translation of an idea into language. Rather, language is involved in the formation of an idea even before it is committed to some form of interpersonal communication. Language will therefore shape the thoughts we have them even before we attempt to speak them. Since language is inherently structured, what is produced with language will be structured. This structure within discourse in turn creates the structures and systems we might call "academic fields," even those these fields might contain drastically contradictory theories.
Within Biblical Studies, we can see this happening. Modern biblical scholarship ranges from scholars who assert the "inerrant fact" of Scripture and those that assert that Scripture is an anthology of fictional narratives. The analysis both of these methods produces varies wildly, and yet both fall under the aegis of "Biblical Studies." They are studying the same core text, but do so in radically different ways and with different tools. They would not need to be considered the same field. A chemist and a physicist can both study elemental hydrogen, but would do so with different goals in mind. They also would not be considered the same academic discipline.
The minimalist and the maximalist both contribute to biblical studies. Both attempt to find the "truth" which is believed to be found within the text of sacred writings. This truth varies for each of them. It could be what the ancients believed a text to mean, what the text can mean today, what historical reality can we find from the text, how the text points to doctrinal statements made/held today, etc. This web around Scripture and "truth," with varying definitions of all of the included terms, can be held to be "Biblical Studies."
No comments:
Post a Comment