Prolegomena

So I've been reading Provan/Long/Longman's book A Biblical History of Israel which on the whole is very well written and a great overview of ancient Israel. One thing I have noticed though is that while the book is some 300 pages (with small print), a full third of the book is dedicated to historiographic concerns - essentially a justification for writing a history of Israel using the biblical text as a primary source. While it's a helpful discussion, I wonder if these authors have gotten caught in today's almost obsessive preoccupation with prolegomena, seen especially in Christian theology and philosophy.

One of my professors has said that prolegomena is like clearing the throat before one speaks. What is funny is that if we take this analogy to our present context, then there are many scholars and writers today who seem to spend the majority of their time clearing their throats and then finally getting around to saying something worthwhile (if they ever get there!) I think one of the unforunate aspects of the contemporary academic landscape - call it "postmodern" if you like - is that many feel like they have to spend a good deal of labor and book space with preliminary issues and philosophical questions, and then end up doing less with their actual object of study. Thus, a scientist in a Christian university has to come up with a "Christian philosophy of science" before he ever looks at something under the microscope. Bavinck, a theologian who himself wrote a very lengthy Prolegomena to his dogmatic theology, wisely comments right at the beginning that in going through introductory matters like the authority of Scripture and the place of the church and tradition in theological formulation, one is already doing theology! This seems like a wise insight - and it warns us not to draw a map before we've actually hit the trail.