Time and again in OT scholarship one comes across an appeal to a consensus view as a way of persuading the reader that an interpretation is correct. More often than not, such a consensus was laid down in older German scholarship of the 19c., what was once known as “Higher Criticism”. An appeal to a consensus and the perpetuation of the consensus can be found in all types of scholarship, both critical and conservative. This is not to deny that critical and conservative scholars do not have their differences, but it is more often the case that conservative critics adopt a critical view and modify those parts of it that undermine a high view Scripture.
The question for this article is whether this is a sound method. Appealing to a consensus is, of course, an appeal to a kind of authority, and as such can only be a fallacy if it is used to prove a point. Proof should proceed on the basis of assumptions, premises (both expressing observation) and inference. However, this is not my point, which is, rather, that consensus politics impedes biblical research.
Standard pedagogy for research students beginning a thesis dictates that the student should focus only on the primary sources and ignore all secondary literature; in this way it is hoped that original ideas and questions may emerge unalloyed by the work of previous scholars. At the same time, standard methodology in the UK is for the research student to first produce a review of research as a way of setting out in detail his/her research proposal for an initial evaluation by supervising academics. The two requirements are incompatible, but in any event it may only be a forlorn hope that a research student could look at the primary sources, as it were, without the influence of secondary scholarship already having made its mark. In a way, what the pedagogical ideal is aiming for is nothing more than a questioning approach on the part of the student and to spark originality.
A review of scholarship will soon highlight where majority opinion has fallen on a given topic. As an historical overview, it will discover what range of viewpoint has been expressed, and notable scholars of the past will be gathered according to their “school of thought”—but it will also become plain that past views have been superseded and that there is a modern received consensus. One easy route for a student pursuing research is to rehabilitate the approach of an older scholar in modern guise. Here s/he is deflected by the modern consensus to re-visit older lines of thought in order to “say something”; the thesis thus becomes a history of ideas.
The consensus on a biblical subject can also direct the student away into other extra-biblical topics. These may very well be worthy topics of research in themselves, but our point is that a consensus has driven the student to look for “gaps in the market” elsewhere; a proverb common in academic NT scholarship is that “its all been done”—there are no original ideas to be had. At the same time as receiving this wisdom, a student thinking of a research topic may well be advised to consider the OT “where there is still useful work to be done”. One way to appreciate this situation is to review the seminar programme of the annual SBL conference and count the number of seminars sessions devoted to extra-biblical topics; new biblical exegesis is not as common as one would have expected in a society for biblical literature.
The consensus in a biblical subject will often lead a student to apply a new method to the primary texts—a method inevitably devised outside of Biblical Studies and brought in and applied to the biblical texts. This will produce original writing and illuminate the text to a degree. For example, since the 1970s there has been a whole raft of literary theories applied to the biblical text with favourable results for the bible student. It has to be said though that the application of, say, a structuralist analytical framework may not produce exegetical insight. J. D. G. Dunn once remarked to me [in conversation] upon the fashion for Greimas’ structural analysis in the 1980s that he doubted whether any real exegetical insights were being offered in the student theses he was examining. Often, new analytical frameworks may appear to be nothing more than an end in themselves.
There is a direct connection between church doctrine and a scholarly consensus on a NT topic. While NT scholars mark a distinction between Dogmatics and NT historical scholarship, their description of the “data” directly affects the possibilities for doctrinal development using the NT text. Church doctrine manifests its own consensus and this reinforces a corresponding consensus in NT scholarship. For example, it might not be surprising to discover that a Pentecostal scholar studying Acts 2 will more than likely come up with results supportive of their own confession.
Fundamental researches—research that questions the researcher’s confessional (doctrinal) stance, or Christianity in general, is impeded by consensus politics. Perhaps the best NT research can only be done by Jewish scholars or students from outside the Christian mainstream. Certainly, it is worthwhile collecting the books of those scholars that have been ostracized by the mainstream biblical academic community, as they often have the “out of the box” ideas that open up the text.
Consensus is not abstract; it is maintained. Just like the doctrines of the church, which are maintained by the professional clergy, confessional academics, and church synods and councils, consensus is maintained in academic circles. One way consensus is maintained is by peripheral repetition. Because of specialization in biblical research, all peripheral areas are “taken on trust”, i.e. a student will take on board the consensus view from a peripheral area if s/he has to include a position-statement from such an area in his/her thesis. This happens frequently and it reinforces the consensus in those peripheral areas through dint of repetition. For example, a NT scholar will trust what s/he reads in OT commentaries, especially if the few that are consulted are all pulling in the same direction. A NT scholar is rarely an OT specialist.
More significantly, consensus is maintained socially. Reputation and authority are important influences on the maintenance of a status quo, and the scholarly community is, above all, a social group, meeting and talking “shop”, and reading each other’s writings. They respect authority in a field and there is a pecking order in university ranks. The best academics are meant to end up at the best institutions and their views are accorded a preferential status.
There are confessional sub-groups to recognise in this situation, and a conservative and a critical consensus might be maintained by different groups. For example, in NT scholarship there is a consensus that some NT writings betray a pre-existence and incarnation Christology—the consensus is more prevalent in conservative scholarship. This is maintained socially as well as confessionally; it would be difficult to present a successful thesis that sought to overturn this consensus. Thus, while Dunn (Christology in the Making) limited to the Gospel of John the NT writings in which incarnation could be found, he was widely criticized for his position. It would be impossible to present new exegetical material showing that even John was no haven for pre-existence Christology; the exegesis (which exists in some recent Christadelphian writing) would come up against the sheer weight of numbers in the orthodox consensus.
Consensus requires conformity and conforming to a consensus position is a pressure that is felt in any social group, from the playground to the hall of residence. In research communities, pressure might come from peers, academic supervisors and examiners, as well as the student’s own aspirations. If a student wants to develop an academic career, s/he may well feel pressure to conform to certain positions in order to “get on in life”. As in business and employment generally, academic patronage is important to success.
Christadelphians live in a world outside the consensus of church doctrine, although this is less the case with NT and OT scholarship—here there is less scepticism on the part of Christadelphians for conservative consensus scholarship and there ought to be a healthier scepticism.
While this article has been negative about consensus, it would be unbalanced not to recognise that truth can lie with a consensus just as with a minority. It would be a fallacy to suggest otherwise. The article is rather a warning about how consensus politics can impede research, not that consensus views are inevitably wrong. There is much of value in conservative consensus scholarship.
Analysis of the eschatology in 1 Thess 4:13-5:11 and 2 Thess 1:5-2:12