In a subheading entitled “Truth and Subjectivity,” Eta Linnemann, in her criticism of certain aspects of modern biblical scholarship, wrote the following which is all the more relevant today than when she originally penned the following:
Among the upcoming generation of scholars a resignation regarding the truth often prevails. This resignation shows itself in theories of subjectivity. Actually, the logical corollary of this ought to be the end of scientific work in theology, but this conclusion is not taken seriously. The question arises, though, whether science is serving merely as a means of self-realization. One should not overlook, however, the good conscience that theological faculties can maintain about their work in view of the relation between supply and demand which exists as long as churches generally make formal study in these faculties a binding requirement.
Increasingly the younger generation of theologians is being infiltrated by socialism. God’s saving purpose and eternal redemption in Jesus Christ are replaced by human goals of world improvement. These goals are veiled in arbitrarily selected words of the so-called “historical Jesus,” who is interpreted as a social reformer or as a revolutionary, depending on what the interpreter desires. Preferred texts include the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and the discourse on world judgement (Matt. 25:31-46), as well as Jesus’ words regarding the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28). In the last passage the term son of man in verse 28 is taken to mean simply man, which is linguistically possible. Jesus’ table fellowship with tax collectors are sinners (e.g. Mark 2:15-17) is taken as proof that he changed unjust social structures and that we should imitate him in this.
Characteristic of this approach is the theory of projection. The Old Testament is or the most set aside as irrelevant as to us because it is, entirely, or in part, merely an intellectual construction, a projection. It is the result of then-current patriarchal social structures and reflects ancient agrarian production conditions; the Old Testament had the function of justifying and lending stability to these structures and conditions. According to this theory, even the ten commandments are no longer normative for us. Jesus is said to have abolished them with the commandment to love. But what love means is not derived from God’s Word, but is rather determined by sensual means.
The prophets are ranked as social reformers. Amos serves as the alibi for this. (Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology of Ideology?—Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical [trans. Robert Yarbrough; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1990], 92, emphasis in bold added)