Orthodox-christelijke theologie en historisch-kritisch Bijbelonderzoek. Een repliek

Samenvatting

In his contribution to the present issue, S. Janse argues that Dutch orthodox-Reformed biblical
scholars and theologians of the present and former generation have not taken (the impact of) historical biblical criticism (HBC) seriously enough. Those of them who don’t reject HBC altogether tend to make use of its outcomes when these fit their views, but largely ignore its theologically unwelcome results. In response, I (1) mention some examples of serious engagement with HBC in orthodox-Reformed theological circles, (2) suggest that an eclectic attitude towards HBC should not necessarily be explained psychologically as the result of anxiety, but could equally well be seen as a reflective and responsible position, and (3) argue that this position might even be recommendable since the ‘results’ of HBC are much less fixed and unambiguous than is sometimes suggested. Next, I (4) qualify the alleged task of church theologians to inform their communities about the results of HBC, since the church is not primarily interested in factual information about the Bible but in hearing the voice of God through the Bible. Finally, I (5) argue that both E. Troeltsch’s principle of analogy and present-day ‘methodological atheism’ should be rejected as axiomatic principles when examining the historical backgrounds of the biblical message.