A Tribute to Eleanore Stump

I believe that epistemology is not limited to empiricism.

A professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary in New York City specializes in the so-called ‘biblical historical method.’ This methodological approach to scripture has yielded many relevant and interesting aspects of the societal and cultural experiences that the Jesus of Nazareth would have experienced. However, it also has its downside, insofar that many of these theologians fail to run their conclusions through the rigorous systematic philosophical tests that are needed. This field of biblical scholarship has brought about a plethora of historical informative particularities that then lead to an adaptation in theologies. However, many times these adaptations fail the philosophical attempts at logical scrutiny. This biblical scholarship then develops a ‘detached theology,’ one independent of any rigorous academic philosophical argumentation. I give you an example from a lecture I happened to hear today. This is the scripture under his historical microscope:

1st Corinthians: 2: 1-8
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.
Yet among the mature we do not speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Now, he articulated his position through an organic style of argumentation, but for the sake of analytic philosophy I have compiled what I believe is an accurate reproduction of his argumentation but in the appropriate philosophic format. I see two arguments in his overall articulation. These premises of the first argument are:

1. The Book of Proverbs’ linguistic usage of ‘wisdom’ is historically understood as a representation of the Divine Feminine.
2. Paul, because he was an educated Jew, had a previous knowledge of the Book of Proverbs linguistic usage of ‘wisdom’ as the representation of the Divine Feminine.
3. Paul’s knowledge of the Old Testament’s usages of ‘wisdom’ concludes he also used the term ‘wisdom’ as a representation for the Divine Feminine in his epistle.

I am not arguing the historic process behind any of the argumentation, nor of the historical methodology that produced the information for the argument, I am neither a historian nor an archeologist. Rather, I am arguing against the philosophical logic and cohesiveness of such an argument.
First, premise one has the blanket, un-argued assumption that the writer of the Book of Proverbs specifically and univocally meant ‘wisdom’ to be only used in one meaningful interpretation, namely that of the Divine Feminine. However, because do not know for certain the intention of the author of Proverbs, it is entirely possible that this author’s intent was to have a multiplicity of meanings and interpretation for what is meant by ‘wisdom.’ There is no logical reason to assume that the author meant only one interpretation for the term ‘wisdom,’ especially given the claims by many historical critical methodologists that the Hebrew Bible is full of ambiguous meanings and multifaceted motifs. Additionally, it is also equally logical that the author of Proverbs had meant two meanings simultaneously, including for the sake of argumentation that of the Divine Feminine. For example, the author could have had in mind that the personification of wisdom to be the Divine Feminine as well as a future messianic figure. The unjustified assumption that the author’s intent was narrowly confined to one specific interpretation, and the even narrower assumption that it was the Divine Feminine, is a just that, an unjustified assumption, hardly convincing empirical evidence or logical veracity. Now, with these other logical possibilities, the conclusion of the entire argument has already been shown to be at best, narrow conjecture, but hardly empirical or logical certainty. However, for the sake of his argument, I will make their grandiose philosophical and logical assumptions in the attempt to demonstrate the complete illogicality of this argument.

The second and third premises has several philosophical and logical assumptions as well. First, and the most glaring and egregious of logical assumptions, is that the professor is assuming that it logically follows that because Paul knew of the author’s intent in the Divine Feminine interpretation in the Book of Proverbs that he used that same literary device in his epistle. (I am not arguing against him having this knowledge, although it seems logically questionable, but nevertheless.) The leap in logic can be summed in the following: even an irrefutable, empirically verifiable fact that Paul knew that the author’s intent was to interpret ‘wisdom’ as the Divine Feminine (or the tradition that said such) does not logically conclude that Paul then is articulating that exact same analogy to his usage of the term wisdom in his epistle. That assumption is completely unfounded in its logic, and hardly verifiable. It is just as equally possible, perhaps even more logical, that while Paul may have been educated in the Proverbs interpretation he may have meant something entirely unrelated to it. It is also a possibility that Paul meant absolutely nothing in common with an interpretation of Proverbs, but was just simply using the term wisdom in a different light. It is also possible that even if we grant that Paul may have been alluding to Proverbs, he could have been making an allusion to a Judaic mythology of wisdom, not the personification of the Divine Feminine as such. It is also possible that Paul may have been attempting to give credence to the Proverbs as Hebrew prophecy, as a sign pointing towards Jesus Christ. There are as many possibilities as people to interpret this passage. My point in this regard is that it is hardly logical to make the assumption the professor has, and illogical to articulate it as certainty.

Second Argument
1. Paul in the epistle describes the word ‘wisdom’ as something “secret and hidden” and writes that if the rulers knew this they would not have crucified Christ.
2. Because of Paul’s descriptive term of ‘secret and hidden’ for ‘wisdom,’ he is making a direct correlation between Christ and a ‘secret and hidden’ wisdom.
3. Thus, Paul is writing that Christ is the true Divine Feminine.

The second argument has many logical problems as well. First, if we make his assumption in premise one that Paul is alluding to a specific interpretation of Proverbs, it does not conclude to premise three, the assumption that he is making the statement that Christ is the Divine Feminine. It is just as entirely possible that Paul was alluding to the Divine Feminine and making an analogous statement that Christ is somehow like the Divine Feminine, but it is illogical to assume with certainty that he is the Divine Feminine. In other words, even if we grant the assumption that Paul was alluding to the Divine Feminine (which is not conclusive as we have demonstrated) it does not logically conclude that this alluding must be interpreted as convertible. If we grant this assumption, it is just as logical to assume that Paul was making an analogy, not a statement of fact that Christ really is the Divine Feminine.
Second, there is an unverified assumption that the description of ‘secret and hidden’ is specifically meant to be read as something inside Christ, an hidden truth of his being. This assumption seems to have no grounding in terms of the text, but rather a leap in logic. Furthermore, the text says, “But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.” Nowhere in this or the surrounding text imply that the God’s wisdom which is being ‘spoken of’ has anything to do whatsoever with who Christ actually is.
Finally the conclusion that Paul is articulating the position that if the rulers knew Christ was the Divine Feminine they would not have crucified him is equally unfounded. It is equally possible that Paul is addressing the fact that the rulers did not listen to those who spoke God’s wisdom. Or it is equally possible Paul is making a statement about rulers not know that Jesus was the Christ. In either situation, it would be quite a wide leap to make the assumption Paul is specifically meaning if only the rulers knew he was the Divine Feminine.
As a consequence, in these ways, the biblical historical method has failed in articulating with certainty any of their claims, nor have they demonstrated a likely possibility to them, and even more disheartening is the fact that it even fails in producing a logical and cogent argument.
I believe this attempt at the biblical critical methodology has accepted such ridiculously narrow parameters, namely empirical verificationism, because of their philosophical assumptions. I mean by this that because of certain assumptions made about God, they have condemned themselves to this increasingly narrow position. For example, the reason why many of these theologians argue for this hyper rationalist approach to the scripture is their philosophical assumption that God does not work in space and time. As such, the scriptures have to be approached as any other work of literature, to be dissected and placed under a microscope. However, what philosophical reason do they give for such an assumption of God’s ability? The answer is none, they make these wild assumptions without any articulation, any logical scrutiny, or any rigorous attempts at philosophic arguments. As such, they create a detached theology, one detached from the rigors of logic, and the systematizing of philosophy. So as I see it this enterprise (biblical critical method) has a lot of work to do before it becomes credible, first it must make all attempts to use rigorous attempts as logic, and when assumptions need to be made, make them, but do not claim certainty where certainty is not there. Second, they need to examine their philosophical assumptions of God and epistemology, argue for your beliefs, do not blindly accept what is in vogue. When these two critiques are at least attempted their enterprise will advance well beyond where they are now.

So what’s my point? We need more than the modernist empirical method to scripture. We deserve, and need more, than the biblical critical method.