History, Confession, and Fallacy of the Excluded Middle

History vs. confession? Is that what the most important issue of our time boils down to? Are there any other categories?

 Also known as “false choice,” “false dichotomy,” or “false dilemma,” the fallacy of the excluded middle refers to an error in logic where a single choice between two alternatives is offered when there are actually more choices available. Such argumentation is common, even among academics, and this is just the sort of thinking I ran into this morning while cruising through the blogosphere. The post in question compared “confessional” and “historical-critical” approaches to biblical scholarship and seemed to imply (okay, stated unequivocally) that you could either be one or the other. Really? Are those the only two options? Are there not confessional scholars who are also “historical-critical” in their approach? If not, what was Raymond Brown doing all those years?

 To be sure, there is a strand of confessional scholarship that disengages from historical-critical controls and argues with a fundamentalist zeal. There is also a radical “anti-confessional” strand of scholarship whose similarly fundamentalist ramblings give the pamphleteers of the 19th century a run for their money. Neither of these approaches should be given any credibility. But if we distance ourselves from those two polar ends of the spectrum, can’t we say that this type of thinking represents a false dilemma? Surely you can be both confessional and historical-critical at the same time, or you can be one and not the other, or even neither one, can’t you?

During my time at Catholic University we were fond of recounting stories of Joe Fitzmyer’s slavish adherence in class to the historical-critical method. I don’t think anyone (including the blogger in question) would judge Fitz’s rigorous work in Aramaic, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and biblical exegesis as being “confessional” rather than “historical-critical,” even though he is an ordained Jesuit priest (you don’t get much more “confessional” than that). Above all, Fitz is a career-long advocate and practitioner of the historical-critical method.

 But even still, there are more categories, aren’t there? What about those who find little value in what the historical critics have bequeathed to us (source-, form-, and redaction criticisms) and have moved forward into narrative, reader-response, and postmodern criticisms? I’m sure those scholars (many of whom are “confessional” and many of whom are not) would object to the narrow scope of the “either confession or historical critical” proposal.

 Even still, are there not more options? I know scholars who would call themselves followers of Jesus Christ who refuse to teach the “historical truth” of the resurrection or virginal conception but still confess the “theological truth” of these doctrines.

 There are more options and the “either/or” dilemma is extremely shortsighted and fails to take into account a much wider spectrum of methodological approaches. In making such a false dilemma the blogger in question fails to acknowledge her own presuppositions and commitments and instead implies that the “historical-critical” method is a bias-free, objective approach, vis-à-vis the “highly biased” confessional approach. This view of reality is as overly simplified as the “confessional” view being characterized in the post. If this is indeed the most important issue of our time then the problem needs to be more clearly explained and more thoroughly considered.