Evidence-Based Biblical Studies (EBBS) as a Meta-Method

One of the most significant tensions present in the history of biblical interpretation is the difference between analyzing the text itself and constructing an interpretive system around the text. It is precisely within this space that Evidence-Based Biblical Studies (EBBS) emerges. Not as another theological school, but as a metamethod examining the very process through which interpretation is produced. EBBS does not first ask, “What should we believe?” but rather: “On the basis of what evidence do we claim that the text means this?”

The difference may appear subtle, but in reality it changes the entire architecture of thinking about the Bible. Classical theology often begins with a predefined system of meanings, which is then confirmed through carefully selected interpretations of the text. EBBS reverses this sequence. First come the data: language, structure, context, textual variants, transmission history, and narrative continuity. Only afterward can interpretive hypotheses be formulated. In this sense, EBBS functions similarly to evidence-based methodologies found in empirical sciences — it separates data from the explanatory model.

It is precisely here that the Gospel statement that Jesus taught “as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Mt 7:29; Mk 1:22) gains particular significance. From an epistemological perspective, this statement contains an exceptionally important methodological observation. The issue was not the knowledge possessed by the scribes themselves, but the manner in which interpretation was being handled. Their authority arose from extensive systems of commentary, traditions, and interpretive schools that gradually began functioning as a filter stronger than the text itself.

At many points in history, theology repeated exactly the same mechanism. It declared the principle that Scripture should interpret Scripture, yet interpretive practice often led to the opposite situation — the theological system began interpreting the Bible. The source text became subordinated to prior doctrinal assumptions, while tensions present in the source material were harmonized before they were genuinely analyzed. As a result, interpretation ceased to be a response to the data and instead became a mechanism for protecting the system itself.

EBBS attempts to interrupt this process by restoring the primacy of data over interpretive construction. For this reason, it is not theology in the classical sense, but a metamethod. It does not create a new dogma; rather, it examines the epistemic quality of existing interpretations. It is concerned not only with the conclusion itself, but with the path leading to that conclusion: what data were used, which elements are explicit, which are implicit, where inference appears, and where interpretation begins to exceed the source material.

J.J. Tissot, The Pharisees and the Sadducees Come to Tempt Jesus | Wiki

In this context, the metaphor of light also becomes profoundly important. In the Gospels, there appears the image of a lampstand that is “not placed under a basket.” From the perspective of EBBS, this metaphor also possesses an epistemological dimension. The Bible was not presented as knowledge intended exclusively for closed interpretive elites. The text was meant to be accessible, audible, and open to analysis. Yet some theological traditions led to a situation in which the ordinary reader no longer maintained direct contact with the text itself, but only with its interpretive derivatives.

This is precisely why EBBS places such strong emphasis on separating the level of data from the level of reception. Historical reception is an important object of study, but it cannot automatically replace the source itself. A centuries-old interpretation does not become evidence simply because it has been repeated many times. The EBBS metamethod does not reject tradition, but treats it as one object of analysis among others — just as manuscript variants, linguistic structures, and transmission processes are analyzed.

This approach also transforms the understanding of authority. In classical theological systems, authority often derives from the continuity of an interpretive school or institution. In EBBS, authority shifts toward the transparency of the research process. The strength of an interpretation does not arise from the status of the interpreter, but from the quality of the evidence and the proportionality of conclusions relative to the data.

Therefore, EBBS does not oppose theology as such. Rather, it seeks to limit situations in which the interpretive system begins to dominate the text so strongly that the Bible ceases to function as a genuine source and instead becomes merely a symbolic justification for a previously established construct. 

In this sense, the EBBS metamethod serves as a form of epistemic oversight over religious interpretation.

One could therefore say that the difference between theology and EBBS resembles the difference between constructing a map and examining the quality of the map itself. Theology creates models of meaning. EBBS investigates whether the path leading to those models was methodologically honest, transparent, and proportionate to the available evidence. It does not first ask whether an interpretation is doctrinally attractive, but whether it genuinely emerges from the text itself.