This special edition of the Journal of Disability and Religion surveys the biblical scholarship that has engaged in a focused way with the issue of disability and considers how the field might develop in ways relevant to the complex phenomena involved. That word “complex” is pivotal to the content of the essays that follow. Because biblical studies is typically a discipline interested in the historically critical exegesis of texts, much of what has been done to date has focused on the disabilities that are identified as such in the Bible and related literature. This is important in itself and makes an important contribution to the study of how disability is experienced in religiously characterized communities. But does this mean that the Bible has less relevance to the study of disabilities that were not known as such in the ancient world, or that we might today class as “hidden” (such as autism, which existed, but was not named)? Should scholars say that the Bible says nothing about such things and move on? Or might there be other ways in which biblical studies can be brought into constructive interdisciplinarity with research into disability.
This edition probes these issues, recognizing that the complex phenomena of disability might be approached in important ways by the complex disciplines of biblical studies. Kirsty Jones surveys the work undertaken to this point in scholarship on the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (these two terms constitute distinct identifications of the same body of literature); Isaac Soon surveys the work undertaken to this point in New Testament scholarship. Both identify the trajectories in the research to date and offer critical reflection on the status quaestionis and the new lines of investigation that need to be opened up. Soon, in particular, notes the limiting issues generated by the culture of biblical research and the necessary challenges emerging. Grant Macaskill reflects very particularly on autism, as an example of an unnamed disability, and considers how the preliminary work undertaken to date might be established and extended into a more rounded field of constructive research. Susan Eastman’s article exemplifies the kind of interdisciplinarity that Macaskill calls for, a thoroughgoing consideration of autism and personhood, in dialogue with the writings of Paul. Andrew Sloane provides another example of reading texts creatively in relation to the experience of disability, focusing on the representation of the poor as a model for thinking about God’s care for those with cognitive disability, by reading the Psalms in light of a theology of medicine.
The essays embody a range of approaches to how biblical studies and disability studies might be brought together, in some cases with a view to constructive theology. The essays are international in origin and some of the preferences of terminology reflect this. Macaskill, for example, prefers identity-first language for autism, while Eastman tends to use person-first language. The essays are also exploratory in character and readers will ask themselves whether the explorations are successful, or open trajectories that others will want to extend. Readers may strongly disagree with some of what is here attempted or the conclusions reached. Collectively, however, the essays show the potential that biblical studies has to contribute to the study of disability, as well as the need to press beyond the limits of standard historical-critical methods if this potential is to be realized.
aDivinity, History and Philosophy, King’s College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
bSchool of Divinity, History and Philosophy, King’s College, College Bounds, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
[email protected]