I hear this one in myriad variations:
‘Badiou’s use of Paul is merely as an example of his preconceived system’.
‘Does Negri need Job? No’.
‘Those Americans are not really exegetes’. (They are probably not many things, but exegetes?)
‘Is that really what Calvin is saying or is that you?’
And perhaps the best of all: ‘Do you need Ezekiel?’
On the surface they may sound innocent enough: we need to read carefully and attentively, exegeting the text for its true meaning. But beneath that are deeply held theological and autocratic assumptions. Earlier I had a dig at the theological side of things, but let’s look at the autocratic assumptions. The text and ultimately the author is the autocrat with the supreme authority; the task of scholars is to discern the autocrat’s meaning and will; in doing so, leave all of your petty preconceptions at the palace door. Here too theology is not far away, for autocracy traditionally argues: one God in heaven, one ruler as his representative on earth. Of course, the problem is which autocrat do we mean? During the period of absolute monarchies, myriad rulers – Russian, Prussian, Danish, papal … – claimed to be God’s sole representative. The implications for texts should be obvious.