





































Microsoft Word - Kalmanofsky.docx


[Expositions 9.1 (2015) 114–120]  Expositions (online) ISSN: 1747–5376 
 

   
 

A Perspective on the Trends and Challenges of Biblical Studies 

 
AMY KALMANOFSKY 

Jewish Theological Seminary 

 

 

Before commenting upon the current state of biblical studies, I am compelled to address why a 

book roughly the size of Tolstoy’s War and Peace warrants a field of study as vast as biblical 

studies.1 Although overall the Hebrew Bible tells the religious and national history of ancient 

Israel, it is a collection of books—each with their own compositional history—that is edited over 

time. The twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible are as varied in genre as they are in historical 

orientation.2 There are the myths of Genesis, as well as its patriarchal narratives, the royal annals 

of Samuel and Kings, the poetry of the prophets and the psalms, and the wisdom sayings of 

Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. A scholar easily can focus attention on a particular book, genre, or 

historical period, addressing its literary form or its compositional and interpretive history. A 

scholar can also search for literary or linguistic cognates, and engage in comparative studies with 

other cultures, histories, and literatures of the ancient world. In this way, biblical studies expands 

beyond the confines of the Hebrew Bible to become a varied and rich field of study.  

Despite the vastness of the discipline, biblical scholarship conforms broadly to three distinct 

types, each defined by a particular focus. Scholarship with an historical focus studies the world 

that produced the Bible. Scholarship with a textual focus addresses the text itself. Scholarship with 

an interpretive focus considers how the Bible has been read and understood over time, particularly 

within different religious traditions. Naturally, there is a great deal of cross-fertilization and 

overlapping concerns within these types of scholarship. A textual scholar can also be concerned 

with history, and may engage in Comparative Semitics and the dating of texts. An historical scholar 

could undertake a literary reading that notes how much or how little a text reflects historical reality. 

An interpretive scholar could mine biblical commentaries for more accurate understanding of 

words and insight into biblical passages. In fact, given how much remains unknown about the 

Bible and the world that produced it, it is arguably impossible, and perhaps irresponsible, for a 

biblical scholar to silo him/herself in any one inquiry of study without integrating the methods and 

findings of other inquiries into their work.3  

Another essential divide in biblical scholarship at the moment is between the modernists and 

the postmodernists. In significant ways, biblical criticism is a product of modernism developed by 

figures such as Julius Wellhausen, Hermann Gunkel, John Bright, and Gerhard von Rad, who 

believed that the Bible’s textual and contextual history could be revealed by applying scientific 

methods of inquiry to it. Modernist scholars use the tools of biblical scholarship to provide insight 

into the worlds that produced and compiled the Bible, as well as into the process through which 



115  Kalmanofsky 
 

   
 

the text was transmitted. Postmodernism, which offers a shift in perspective which privileges 

subjectivity over objectivity, challenges basic assumptions about what can be known about any 

discipline, but poses particular challenges to biblical studies. Postmodern scholars dismiss the 

notion that there is a single, accessible, inherent meaning to a text (something readers of the Bible 

have assumed for centuries4), and contend that texts have multiple meanings and subtexts—

hidden, sometimes conflicted, meanings embedded intentionally or unintentionally within a text. 

Under the weight of the postmodernist critique, Bible scholars cannot claim objectivity in their 

methods, nor can they proclaim the truth of their discoveries. They cannot maintain that they have 

access to the Bible’s inherent truth, nor that such a truth exists. Postmodern Bible scholars embrace 

the multiplicity of meaning and seek to elucidate the subtexts in the Bible. They strive to 

understand ideologies that shape the biblical text, and look for ways in which the biblical text 

supports or challenges these ideologies.5  

I provide this schematic of the field not only to introduce the discipline, but also to introduce 

myself. I consider myself to be a postmodernist Bible scholar who is text-centered, and who is 

engaged in literary interpretation with a particular focus on gender issues. I received my Ph.D. in 

2005 from the Jewish Theological Seminary where I now teach undergraduate and graduate 

students, as well as rabbinical students. Though my training was secular, not religious, I contend 

that religious orientation and affiliation does matter in my field, since many biblical scholars train 

and teach in religious seminaries where the Hebrew Bible is a revered text. It should not be 

surprising that religion and politics affect biblical studies in ways and degrees spared other fields.6 

As a good postmodernist, I recognize that it is impossible to disentwine completely my academic 

and personal relationship to the Hebrew Bible. In fact, one of the challenges to biblical studies I 

identify below is the difficulty in navigating the intersection between the university and the 

seminary—between the classroom where the Bible is studied, and the church or synagogue where 

it is worshipped.  

I offer now a few comments on the state of the field from my perspective as a postmodern, 

literary, and gender scholar. From where I sit, the field looks strong, inviting, and healthfully 

evolving. It demonstrates an ability to engage with new ideas and to adapt to current academic 

trends. Feminist biblical studies may have morphed into the more elastic gender studies, but 

attention still remains upon the biblical representation of women,7 and, from a more modernist 

perspective, on the reconstruction of women’s lives in the ancient world.8 Though women still 

command interest, masculinity studies has taken off in recent years, paying close attention to the 

biblical characteristics and behaviors of manhood.9 My own work provides a good indication of 

what postmodern, gender, and literary scholars like myself currently are engaged in. Building on 

masculinity studies, as well as the influx of queer theory to biblical studies,10 I am examining 

biblical texts that challenge the Bible’s conventional gender norms by presenting characters that 

embody characteristics and behaviors associated with the opposite gender.  



A Perspective on the Trends and Challenges of Biblical Studies 116 
 

   
 

As I mention above, biblical studies has always been interdisciplinary—relying heavily on the 

work done by historians, archeologists and philologists of the ancient world. In particular, literary 

interpreters, like myself, adopt various interpretive lenses from other disciplines, like queer theory 

or film theory, and apply them to biblical studies.11 There has been a recent wave of interest in 

disability studies, as scholars have considered how the Bible relates to bodies that deviate from its 

concept of an ideal body,12 and even more recently, in food studies, as scholars address the 

religious, social, and economic impact of food and food symbolism.13 Trauma studies also has 

made significant inroads into biblical studies as more and more scholars perceive the Bible as a 

literary response to the trauma of exile.14 The intersection between biblical studies and any one of 

these theoretical lenses—whether queer, trauma, disability, or food—reflects contemporary social 

realities and concerns. Twenty-first century anxieties related to gender identity, terrorism, or 

ecological sustainability, have made their way into biblical studies. Some modernist Bible scholars 

may find the integration of theory from other disciplines to be distracting, if not anachronistic, to 

the biblical world. I contend that the integration is testament to the Bible’s literary quality, and is 

in keeping with its interpretive traditions, since, for centuries, the Bible has been read through 

various cultural lenses. Above all, the elasticity with which biblical studies can absorb theories 

from other disciplines is essential to its relevance and to its future. It is the means through which 

new scholars gain access, and an ancient book is made relevant for its secular and religious readers.  

Speaking as a postmodern, literary, gender Bible scholar, overall, I feel optimistic about the 

future of biblical studies, and my place within it. Admittedly, a modernist Bible scholar may offer 

a different and bleaker perspective, lamenting how classical modes of study are no longer in vogue. 

Despite my optimism, I close by addressing challenges facing the field, which I perceive even 

from my vantage point. I experience an increasing generation divide between those who are trained 

classically, and whose scholarship relies upon the tools gained in the process, and those, like 

myself who engage in more theoretically driven scholarship—in other words, between the 

modernist and the postmodernist scholars. Certainly, biblical scholarship has changed over the 

years to accommodate the cultural shift to postmodernism, but more importantly to the field, I 

argue, is the ways in which Bible scholars have changed. A few generations ago, the typical Bible 

scholar was white, male, and Christian. Now, Bible scholars represent a variety of races, religions, 

ethnicities and gender identities. This generation of Bible scholars identified the biased ideology 

of their predecessors, perhaps much to their chagrin, and introduced a multiplicity of perspectives 

into the field, as well as an appreciation for this multiplicity. The question now is how to speak 

across this generation divide, to enable cross-fertilization, and to foster genuine appreciate for all 

the work being done.  

A related challenge is the tension felt within the field between the academic and the religious 

communities who train its scholars, and who produce and consume its scholarship. When applying 

to graduate schools years ago, I was advised not to attend a seminary, which was seen as a bastion 



117  Kalmanofsky 
 

   
 

of subjective religious sentiment, but rather to attend a secular university. I chose to attend a liberal 

Jewish seminary, one that trains rabbis and scholars, because I embraced its subjectivity, and 

believed it would provide me with excellent training as a scholar. I have not regretted my decision. 

Now, as a professor at this seminary, I strive to model for my students the ways in which the 

secular and the religious perspectives can coexist in a healthy and productive tension.  

Not every scholar has to nor should embrace my perspective. There are many scholars who are 

not part of religious communities, and who approach the Bible purely as a cultural artifact. Let me 

be clear: I do not think that biblical studies only belongs in the seminary. But I also do not think it 

is possible or desirable for biblical scholarship to separate fully from religious communities, both 

for pragmatic and for idealistic reasons. Pragmatic reasons are clear. Religious communities 

provide Bible scholars with an audience, with students, and with places of employment. Biblical 

studies is one of the rare disciplines that has an educated lay audience, not unlike the audience that 

enjoys popular science. This audience attends lectures and buys books. We scholars need them, 

and should value them because religious communities give biblical studies a future, and shield it 

from the threat of becoming irrelevant like so many other disciplines that fall within the 

humanities.  

The idealistic reasons for encouraging a relationship between the secular and the religious 

communities that engage in and appreciate biblical studies may be less clear. I contend that the 

relationship between Bible scholars and religious communities is mutually beneficial. Bible 

scholars educate religious communities about the texts they hold sacred, thereby enriching their 

understanding of these texts, and, at times, complicating their relationship to it. As a scholar who 

educates and complicates, I have only experienced appreciation from the communities in which I 

teach. I have found that people appreciate learning more about their sacred texts, and that their 

relationship to these texts even can be enhanced when complicated. Bible scholars may challenge 

religious communities, but religious communities also challenge Bible scholars by forcing us to 

engage with texts, and to consider their value a part from academic discourse. For example, having 

first identified and analyzed texts that depict violence against women, feminist Bible scholars like 

Susanne Scholz now consider how to integrate these disturbing texts into contemporary religious 

communities in ways that do not white-wash their violence.15 In this way, religious communities 

not only enable Bible scholars to remain relevant, they force us to be relevant.  

From my corner of biblical studies, I feel optimistic about its future. It is a field that continues 

to adapt and to grow, and that generates new scholars and scholarship, and a new audience for 

both. My hope is that scholars be open to various modes of scholarship, and to not be dismissive 

of scholars that practice differently, or that teach and train within religious communities. I also 

urge scholars whether religious or not, whether modern or postmodern, to own their perspectives, 

and to teach and write openly from that perspective. Doing so keeps us vital, ensures our future, 

and makes us stronger.  



A Perspective on the Trends and Challenges of Biblical Studies 118 
 

   
 

Notes 

 
1. The Society of Biblical Literature, the professional guild of biblical studies, counts 8,374 

members in 2014.  

2. Different traditions divide and order the books differently, and some, like the Roman 

Catholic or the Greek Orthodox, include additional books within their canon.  

3. For a discussion of the various methods of biblical interpretation, see Barton 1984. 

4. The certainty that a text contains an inherent meaning is what A. K. M. Adam terms the 

“myth of subsistent meaning”; he writes: “The widely held myth of subsistent meaning 

treats “meaning” as an immanent property of a text. A text has meaning as a quality 

independent of particular readers and particular circumstances.” See Adam 2006, 3. 

5. John J. Collins considers the impact of postmodernism on biblical studies in Collins 2005. 

For a current discussion on the relationship between modernism and postmodernism in 

biblical studies see the JBL Forum 2014. 

6. Since the Hebrew Bible is a foundational religious text for Christians and Jews, the impact 

of religion on biblical studies is expected. Politics also plays a role, especially when 

scholars consider the national origins of Israel, and Israel’s connection to the land. See 

Finkelstein 2007. 

7. See Kalmanofsky 2014.  

8. See Ebeling 2010; Meyers 2013; and Hamori 2015. 

9. See Creangă 2010. 

10. See Stone 2005 and Macwilliam 2011. 

11. My first book used film theory on the horror genre to understand how the biblical prophets 

worked to horrify their audience into reform. See Kalmanofsky 2008. 

12. See Schipper 2006. 

13. See Stone 2005. Concurrent with my writing this essay, Professor Brigitte Kahl is teaching 

a course entitled “Idol Meat and Vegetables: Towards a Biblical/New testament Theology 

of Food” at the Union Theological Seminary in New York.  

14. See O’Connor 2010. 



119  Kalmanofsky 
 

   
 

15. See Scholz 2010. 

 

 

Works Cited 

 
Adam, A. K. M. 2006. Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World. 

Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 

Barton, John. 1984. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Louisville: 

Westminster John Knox. 

Collins, John J. 2005. The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age. Grand 

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 

Creangă, Ovidiu. 2010. Men and Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond. Sheffield: 

Sheffield Phoenix Press. 

Ebeling, Jennie R. 2010. Women’s Lives in Biblical Times. New York and London: T&T Clark. 

Finkelstein, Israel. 2007. “Digging for the Truth: Archaeology and the Bible.” In Israel 

Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar. The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology 

and the History of Early Israel. Ed. Brian B. Schmidt. Atlanta: Society of Biblical 

Literature. 9–33.  

Hamori, Esther J. 2015. Women’s Divination in Biblical Literature: Prophecy, Necromancy, 

and Other Art of Knowledge. New Haven: Yale University Press. 

JBL Forum. 2014. Journey of Biblical Literature 133.2. 421–458. 

Kalmanofsky, Amy. 2008. Terror All Around: The Rhetoric of Horror in the Book of Jeremiah. 

New York and London: T&T Clark. 

_____. 2014. Dangerous Sisters of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 

Macwilliam, Stuart. 2011. Queer Theory and the Prophetic Marriage Metaphor in the Hebrew 

Bible. Sheffield and Oakville: Equinox. 

Meyers, Carol. 2013. Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. Oxford and 

New York: Oxford University Press. 

O’Connor, Kathleen M. 2010. Jeremiah: Pain and Promise. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 



A Perspective on the Trends and Challenges of Biblical Studies 120 
 

   
 

Schipper, Jeremy. 2006. Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in 

the David Story. New York and London: T&T Clark. 

Scholz, Susanne. 2010. Sacred Witness: Rape in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress 

Press. 

Stone, Ken. 2005. Practicing Safer Texts: Food, Sex and Bible in Queer Perspective. New 

York and London: T&T Clark. 


