|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Word of God?
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The Gospels were never intended to be relating historical facts, rather they are interpretations of facts from the eyes of the writer.
I think this is pretty much a given – writers write with intention, not in a static, designless environment. They have an aim, a direction of travel, and this is usually prompted by the existence of a gap somewhere, an issue that needs resolving. Otherwise there's little incentive to expend personal resource on a product. So each gospel writer (indeed, each biblical writer) came across a problem they recognise needed to be fixed; they were not content to live with it, so they mitigated the problem by writing.
This is the topic of import in communication theory (developed especially by Kathleen Callow). Communication has purpose (=import, intention).
The problem these writers were addressing may simply have been a gap in someone's knowledge, so the aim in that case was to impart information so that the reader is in a better place to take decisions based on a wider knowledge set (Informational import; Luke's intention, perhaps?). Or the writer may have been expressing information to change the state of things – directing action or commissioning support for action (Volitional import – Paul's intention in many passages). The final import is Expressive; where a writer's intention is to effect change by affecting his audience. This latter import has only recently been studied in any depth (recent decades, anyway); it uncovers the whole area of rhetoric in writing.
What I think you are getting at is not the aspect of intention or purpose in writing, but at the impact this has on confidence. How much confidence can anyone have in the veracity of anybody's communication if they always have an agenda?
Well, at a mundane level humans have had to live with this for, ooooh, as long as we have records of human existence. We get by, day by day, by accepting that knowledge is partial and apt to be misunderstood when set against a truth baseline. Consequently we make mistakes or are led astray and feel something of a fool later for being duped. But you can see how this state of affairs impacts on how we accept the messages in the bible. It's led plenty of commentators of the past generation of throw their hands up in despair and conclude that there can be no confidence – or insufficient confidence – to enable trust in what is read (and therefore in any application impacting on Christian life and belief). This has led to something of a crisis in biblical theology; Brevard Childs summarised the position quite well back in 1980. More on this below in response to B62's post.
I see this extreme lack of confidence as being misplaced. It also has a happy knack of latching onto a distorted understanding of what 'postmodernism' was all about – an easy prop for the afflicted. N. T. Wright addressed the issue of confidence in The New Testament and the People of God (chapter 4). Essentially it boils down to: Just because you're a gospel writer doesn't mean you are not telling the truth. In fact, being a specialist in a field is one reason for being taken seriously. We have more confidence in experts than we have in amateurs. Additionally, it is helpful to draw on the philosophy of knowledge and communication theory again here, invoking the finding that talk about objects external to ourselves should not be reduced to talk about subjective sense-data.
In other words, just because a writer has a point of view, or an agenda, does nothing to inform us whether he or she is telling it 'as it is.' They may well indeed be relating history. We have to go deeper, not back away.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think all folks applying historical critical methods, including higher criticism share the same philosophical outlook
Yes, I agree that people may be draw on different philosophies and yet arrive at similar conclusions. One can travel by different roads to the same destination. Where I fear the issue has been is in assuming that different starting points can automatically predetermine similar ending points.
The crisis in biblical theology I mentioned earlier has proved informative in this regard. The consequence of this crisis has been a wide-spread move away from the traditional historical-critical paradigm, not necessarily because it was asking the wrong questions, but because it was fated to come up with the wrong answers. Philosophically it was groundless. This isn't just an opinion, it's the general state of acceptance now both among those who grew up within that paradigm and came to reject it, and also among the newer generation of biblical theologians who are trying to find a new foundation.
A whole host of ways have been and are being tested in the attempt to find a way out of this. Two series come to mind that provide examples of this: the Overtures to Biblical Theology series [http://www.goodreads.com/series/62689-overtures-to-biblical-theology] and the Scripture and Hermeneutics series [http://www.librarything.com/series/Scripture+%2526+Hermeneutics].
So I guess my warning is: by all means read the impressive tomes that came out of the traditional historical-critical powerhouse that existed especially in Germany for the 150-years or so up to the 1960s, it will provoke all sorts of useful questions and subsequent areas of interest for research, but hold at extreme arms' length the conclusions the writers of those times came to. They need to be tested against more recent findings.
Just on the meaning and significance point: I find useful the distinction made by E. D. Hirsch many moons ago (Validity in Interpretation still to be helpful: Meaning is the authorial intention; Significance is the application of that meaning to any given situation. There have been plenty of debates over authorial intention, but I have found no adequate replacement to the principle still common today that the human author retains moral right of ownership to his or her work – including the interpretation of what was intended and what not. Everything else (significance) is words, to plagiarise a saying from earlier in this thread!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Sorry - a couple of book hyperlinks were missed in that last post.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
When I was in homiletics class, the professor, a Methodist by origin, and no Bible thumping fundamentalist, instructed us to use historical criticism and have it inform our faith, but historical criticism is never to substitute for faith. The historical scholar, tied to principles of objectivity and neutrality, must for his enterprise, assume a secular outlook.
No one seriously thinks for example, that God directly orchestrated the sinking of the Titanic or the first world war. A historian who makes such a claim would be laughed out of the academy. Secular history, by definition, operates from Enlightenment presumptions. Both its advantages and pitfalls come from this epistemology. Secular history is beneficial because it is free from confessional commitments. I can read a good academic history of the English Civil War without worrying about it being a propaganda piece for either the Puritans or the Royalists. Not only that, but I can tell if something is propaganda or not.
But if you want to study Scripture from the perspective of faith, you do have to move beyond the historical method. For example, historians now say that the Exodus event was probably not of the large scale that the Bible records. Some historians maintain that there was no Exodus based on the lack of corroborating archaeological and literary evidence. But none of that makes a difference for the Christian who studies the Exodus as an allegory for liberation from the slavery of sin or liberation movements who study Exodus as an example of justice overcoming oppression.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Philosophically it was groundless. This isn't just an opinion, it's the general state of acceptance now both among those who grew up within that paradigm and came to reject it, and also among the newer generation of biblical theologians who are trying to find a new foundation.
What I find humorous in this is that philosophy recognized the bankruptcy of philosophy by the early 20th century. John Dewey's disciples virtually all left philopsophy out of a recognition of the aridness of the enterprise, and Wittgenstein became well-known for his notion that the only purpose of doing philosophy was to learn how to stop doing it. ISTM that you are looking to build a new foundation on sand..
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
To say there is no philosophy is itself a philosophical statement!
What I think you are referring to is the argument that one particular form of philosophy - one particular way of doing things (as Wittgenstein would have put it) - needs to be replaced by another. That's what has been going on.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
What I think you are referring to is the argument that one particular form of philosophy - one particular way of doing things (as Wittgenstein would have put it) - needs to be replaced by another. That's what has been going on.
No, this is simply false. The understanding was considerably more radical than that, although Wittgenstein could never bring himself to shut up.
To my mind, the real visionary on this was CS Pierce. His critique of Cartesianism was actually a critique on philosophy itself. His point was that we are really not very good at abstract thinking, and when we try to systematize our thoughts on metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, etc., we introduce error by that very enterprise. What we are good at is lots of small insights. As Pierce put it, any idea that is supported by a wealth of disparate facts and insights is vastly more reliable than any idea that emerges by a tortuous set of logical inferences from a seemingly innocuous premise of systematics. In Bertrand Russel's famous phrase, the real joy of philosophy is to start with innocuous premises and arrive at outrageous conclusions.
Now, you may want to say that thinking obout stuff is philosophy, and so we all do it. But that's not what philosophy really is -- it is systematizing that stuff using a particular set of tools and no others. Redefining "philosophy" to subsume, say, physics, is simply to make up your own meaning for words.
Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Then we are talking about two definitions of philosophy. Philosophy as a technique or set of tools is one thing, but I'm talking about deeper stuff - the worldview or belief systems that underlie the use of those tools. That's what I was on about earlier - it's about starting points, not the road. I agree with B62's point that anyone could in principle use the methods associated with historical-criticism. What needs thinking about, though, before anyone can validate the conclusions reached, is the deep stuff that drives a particular use of those tools and can determine outcomes in advance. Coming to terms with that is the first step. Tools (or method) follows.
And it surely is questionable whether Pierce's pragmatism, allied as it was with a scientific enquiry approach, could entirely hold in the field of hermeneutics. It certainly doesn't seem to have done so successfully in the field of biblical interpretation, whether practiced by literalistic approaches or some historical-critical methods.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Nigel M
I suspect the real argument lies elsewhere. The conservative argument, which I know you are not advancing, often goes something like this.
If, for example, application of historical critical methods leads to conclusions at variance with traditional beliefs - or even a range of conclusions which embrace both traditional and other beliefs as inherently possible - that is seen as an attack. How can such a thing be valid? Clearly there must be something wrong.
Stage 1 is to "check the arithmetic" i.e. go through the analysis produced by the historical-critical method and search for logical error, see if the analysis holds water. If (when) it does, then the conservative defence may move to Stage 2.
Under Stage 2 arguments, since the "arithmetic" cannot be shown to be false, then the "presuppositions" underlying the "arithmetic" must be in some way flawed. The whole process must somehow or other be affected by "philosophical presuppositions". Such as "miracles cannot happen", for example.
And I think that is how the "philosophical" dimension arises in this kind of debate. It is a questioning of the presuppositions of folks who are comfortable with historical-critical examination of sacred texts.
That's one of the reasons why I cited the "Sun stand still" OT text. If you want to see how seriously the inherent difficulties of this text were taken by those with conservative understandings of the inspiration of the Word of God, have a look at this 19th century commentary by Adam Clarke. Read the section dealing with Joshua 10:12. A stubborn defence of the text as a scripture fact; in some ways admirable in its perseverance. Yet there can be no doubt where the presupposition lies. It is with Adam Clarke, for whom a scripture fact is a scripture fact not to be contradicted. Even if one has to stand on one's head to save it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
One certainly doesn't have to go far, B62, on the internet to come across excellent examples such as that!
What I would say, though, is presuppositions underlie other approaches, too; e.g., a Hegelian-influenced presupposition that the highest and purest form of religion must be that of faith, not works, led plenty of historical-critics to assert that Israel began with a faith-based religion, but degenerated after the Babylonian exile into one of ritual-works based on Torah. That was something that could not be supported by the evidence (archaeological, sociological, or linguistic), but it held sway for quite some time.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, I agree, Nigel. The pilgrimage of the genuinely honest enquirer can be a difficult one. It is a good idea to look very carefully at all "glittery" theories!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
Under Stage 2 arguments, since the "arithmetic" cannot be shown to be false, then the "presuppositions" underlying the "arithmetic" must be in some way flawed. The whole process must somehow or other be affected by "philosophical presuppositions". Such as "miracles cannot happen", for example.
And I think that is how the "philosophical" dimension arises in this kind of debate. It is a questioning of the presuppositions of folks who are comfortable with historical-critical examination of sacred texts.
CS Lewis put it rather well:
quote:
Every event which might claim to be a miracle is, in the last resort, something presented to our senses, something seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. And our senses are not infallible. If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been victims of an illusion. If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say. What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question.
If immediate experience cannot prove or disprove the miraculous, still less can history do so. Many people think one can decide whether a miracle occurred in the past by examining the evidence 'according to the ordinary rules of historical inquiry'. But the ordinary rules cannot be worked until we have decided whether miracles are possible...
(Miracles, Chapter One. Emphasis mine.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes but it simply is not true that all the people who use the methods of historical critical analysis of the Word of God (or Tradition) have philosophical presuppositions which rule out miracles.
I think you already know most of this, but for the sake of other readers of the thread, this article gives a reasonable overview.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
Yes but it simply is not true that all the people who use the methods of historical critical analysis of the Word of God (or Tradition) have philosophical presuppositions which rule out miracles.
Which is not what Lewis was saying or implying.
We need to clarify our presuppositions before we tackle historical evidence, in order to avoid biased interpretations.
(By the way... I think that reading and interpreting Scripture in its historical context is absolutely essential, and I don't accept the "application" view of Bible interpretation, which tries to draw absolute lifestyle guidance from any part of the Bible without working its principles through the sieve of the socio-historical conditions in which they were originally established.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think the findings of historical criticism are subject to peer review and other reviews. The associated methodologies are relatively independent of presuppositions, but of course the conclusions aren't.
It's not the same as peer review in the so-called "hard" sciences; the value of a finding or an interpretation might well be judged as "consistent with the facts" or "speculative" or "well-founded" etc. But the processes are open and so they cannot be used for propaganda purposes without comment.
Isn't that enough? On general grounds, I don't believe people should be compelled to publish their presuppositions along with their findings and conclusions. If those findings and conclusions are any good, they will gel with the understandings of people with many and various outlooks.
Thinking about the Synoptic problem and the primacy of Mark, for example. Or the different authorship strands in the Penteteuch.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical in Purgatory:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
The presuppositions of practitioners (re the supernatural or indeed anything else) are secondary; the primary dimension is methodological and subject to peer review.
Could you please give me an example of a metaphysically relevant* truth claim that has no reference to or dependence on any philosophical presupposition?
* i.e. a claim that has some bearing on what we believe about the nature of reality. So an idea in the same epistemic category as, for example, London being a city on the river Thames, which was called Londinium by the Romans, doesn't count, because this really has no obvious bearing on anything metaphysical.
I've transferred this post from a tangent to a thread in Purgatory, feeling that it would be on balance better and fairer to reply here.
I've got a few ideas about how to reply to EE's question, but want to reflect a little before posting a reply. I'm busy this evening - my aim is to get round to a reply tomorrow.
It's a good question.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Hearsay, tradition, wishful thinking, nice warm feelings, voices in one’s head, arguments from authority by men in fancy dress, stories invented/embraced by nomadic stone-age goat herders and uncorroborated writings chosen as sacred by a group commanded by a despotic emperor do not meet the standards normally required for “solid evidence”.
I see the Bible as the 'story of Jesus' and I am a follower of Jesus.
Works for me.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Well, except for the sneering dismissal of "nomadic stone-age goat herders" (presumably because they were Dumb and we are Smart!), and for perpetuating the myth that the Council of Nicea, at Constantine's instigation, set the canon of the NT. Hold on, I suppose that means the whole paragraph's bullshit!
I would be interested in knowing how we tell the difference between which parts in the Bible are mere cultural conditioning and which parts are the Real Stuff. Is there a hermeneutic, beyond "this agrees with my politics and this doesn't," or "this offends my culturally-conditioned sense of right and wrong and this does not"?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Fr Weber; I really don't think my revulsion at the idea of genocide is mere cultural conditioning. I have this conviction that marching through cities putting everyone to the sword, down to babes in arms, is inherently wrong.
Sorry.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Fr Weber; I really don't think my revulsion at the idea of genocide is mere cultural conditioning. I have this conviction that marching through cities putting everyone to the sword, down to babes in arms, is inherently wrong.
Sorry.
And yet genocide is a phenomenon in human history which recurs again and again, which suggests that not every culture believes it to be inherently wrong. Your revulsion (and mine) is therefore culturally conditioned.
My question still remains : what hermeneutic allows us to point to a passage and say, in effect, that it doesn't belong in Scripture?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Fr Weber; I really don't think my revulsion at the idea of genocide is mere cultural conditioning. I have this conviction that marching through cities putting everyone to the sword, down to babes in arms, is inherently wrong.
Sorry.
And yet genocide is a phenomenon in human history which recurs again and again, which suggests that not every culture believes it to be inherently wrong. Your revulsion (and mine) is therefore culturally conditioned.
My question still remains : what hermeneutic allows us to point to a passage and say, in effect, that it doesn't belong in Scripture?
That something keeps on happening does not make it any less wrong. Are you suggesting that it isn't inherently wrong; it's just our culture that thinks it is? Should we look at Rwanda and say "nothing wrong with what happened there; just our cultural conditioning"?
I never said it doesn't belong in Scripture. I just said that I don't see "God's Word" as a good way of describing something that contains things like this. If you like, I'd be more inclined to expect God to be "culturally conditioning" folk to reject genocide.
[ 21. May 2013, 16:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
The problem I have with this is--
"Did God become insensate, deaf and mute 2000 years ago when the Bible's LAST WRITER finished?"
I don't think so.
I don't think God stopped being Intelligent, Wise, Witty, Insightful and Tactful ... 2000 years ago.
Therefore, the Bible is merely the beginning of The Word As We Know It ... in my estimation.
And the Holy Spirit of Truth is what is to make up for lost time.
EEWC
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What Brian McLaren said - as SCK has linked.
quote:
[qb]And how is that philosophy justified?
"You don't have to listen to them, you can read it for yourself! Don't worry. God has made His Word clear to us all." That sort of thing. Nonconformism still has some anticlerical suspicions.
What we have not done is COMPARE what YHVH taught as Law and what Jesus taught as ETHICS against the backdrop of Annunaki [SECRET] culture, legalism and meta-physics.
That comparison says it all. [I hope I got the quote code correctly.]
When you compare Annunaki-Babylonian rules of hierarchy (top-down dictation, no questions asked) one realizes, this is not what Jesus was teaching.
It WAS however, what Paul was teaching, who was inserted into the 4th century canon at the same time Church Fathers removed the Gospel of Barnabas, the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Thomas.
Unsettling accounts where the Church wanted to be undoubted Hierarchy.
If not for the Holy Spirit of Truth and the possibility of receiving Light in the privacy of one's own meditations, the Teachings of Jesus, which were anathema to 4th century church fathers, might have been lost completely.
[There's no way to edit or fix this if I got the quote codes wrong. Apologies up front.]
Emily
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Well, FWIW, I stay away from things extra-Biblical that claim inspiration. It has nothing to do with God having become mute, etc, and everything to do with the fact that we're (collectively and individually) about as sharp as a bowling ball, and have yet to digest the rich meal He's given us in Scripture to begin with.
There's a ton of outfits running around claiming inspiration for their extra-Biblical works, and there are a ton of Sola-Scriptura denominations, and other denoms, that have their own slant on how things should be done. Against all these claims I hold only the Scriptures as a measuring rod - it's similar to business, say what you want about we should do this for you or give you that, in the end everything is measured against the contract.
This position comes out of my own childhood problems and religious deception/manipulation. In His glorious word, I have exactly what I need, fixed, its integrity kept (I believe) by the power of the Spirit, so that I have a certain source for truth.
Plus, quite honestly, I've never encountered any information outside of the Bible that has much relevance to my life (aside from writers who discussed the Scriptures and their application).
I don't mean this to be hurtful, but this whole buisness of Nibru and the cabal of aliens and elites that run our earth doesn't mean much to me - I still have problems loving my neighbor as myself! And if aliens are out there, or if evil men are oppressing us with their hierarchies (nothing new there, aliens or not!) God can and will deal with them - it's sure no surprise to him.
Blessings,
Tom
edited to add: Cross posted with you. This was in response to your first post above.
[ 21. May 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Further to this.
There is in Kerygmania a very interesting illustration of how two sets of Christian scholars with very different presuppositions about Scripture and Tradition come to the same conclusion about the meaning of a key metaphysical text; John 1:1
Here is a link to the thread.
The argument is primarily a literary one, but you will see that working from different premises and publishing their workings, conservative evangelical scholars and scholars involved in the compilation of a new translation of the Eastern Orthodox New Testament come to an almost identical view of the meaning of the text translated as "and the Word was God".
The conevos come up with "What God was, the Word was" and the Orthodox come up with "the Word was (what) God (was)".
Their workings are published and open, they are based on a critical examination of the Koine, and they can be followed by any critical student of New Testament texts. As it happens, they both support the orthodox Christian understanding of the person of Christ better than the traditional translation. Here is a key post by me on that topic.
Both analyses show awareness of the need for critical appreciation (i.e. non-dogmatic) of the need for an accurate translation of this key scripture and how they went about it.
Presuppositions do not come into play in either the translation process or its application to the dogmatic significance of the text in understanding both the Trinity and the Person of Jesus.
An agnostic translator can follow the literary process of translation, can see the dogmatic significance, and agree the coherence of the revised English translation with the dogma, without ever agreeing the truth of the dogma. That agreement lies in the context of faith; the meaning of the text and its most effective translation into English is simply a matter of scholarship. Professionals of various presuppositions can appreciate the accuracy of the scholarship behind the detailed modern translation and its independence from dogma.
[ 21. May 2013, 17:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Well, FWIW, I stay away from things extra-Biblical that claim inspiration.
I don't, Tom. And here's why.
God has a Name--YHVH or Jehovah or Yahweh or Jehovih are its approximations.
There are OTHER BOOKS WITH HIS NAME APPENDED.
So I don't just automatically trash them: the
Oahspe, the Urantia Book both have God's NAME inscribed in them.
The Oahspe is completely untained by Babylonian hierarchy teachings, and the Urantia Book is SOLID HIERARCHY from front to back, but they both paint YHVH as "NOT a God who would have people stoned for premarital relations."
God in more recent inspirations has learned that, there is no way--no ethical way--to just get even; and culling people for their feelings doesn't work out in the long haul.
God YHVH is way past such vindictive and karmic behavior in these other inspired tomes.
It's worth giving some reading time and thought to, methinks.
Emily
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
I find also, in confronting experience and existence by principle and by coherence, the inspired work of Swedenborg is very helpful to keep Biblical personalities and quirks and ego out of the mix when we must confront the absolutes of God.
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Well, I don't automatically trash them, either, though I haven't read the particular works that you refer to (nor does my reading of Scripture lead me to stone people for pre-marital relations). But the work does have to stand on its own merits.
I have read a few of the gnostic works, and a few works such as the Protoevangel of James, that "didn't make the cut", found them indeed to be wanting. But as Solomon said, "of making books there is no end" and I have to draw a line somewhere, I just don't have time to read that much.
There used to be a good read on this site, I think by Stephen Tomkins, called "Unholy Writ". It takes a more tongue-in-cheek approach to some of the works in the genre I mentioned (not the ones that you did) Can't find it now, but it was a hoot!
I guess I don't get where you find the need to be concerned about hierarchy. LIke I said, I have trouble enough with those two primary commandments, love God & love my neighbor.
And it may be a mis-type on your part, but "God in more recent inspirations has learned..." if allowed to stand, is certainly wrong - perhaps we have learned ABOUT God, but certainly God has no need of learning, surely?
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I would be interested in knowing how we tell the difference between which parts in the Bible are mere cultural conditioning and which parts are the Real Stuff. Is there a hermeneutic, beyond "this agrees with my politics and this doesn't," or "this offends my culturally-conditioned sense of right and wrong and this does not"?
I think we can make a good start by using what we know of Jesus' behaviour and attitudes as a plumb line. So, for a start; how well does ordering genocide fit with the NT accounts of Jesus?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
But the Bible isn't one book, with one viewpoint. It's lots of books, spanning generations and cultures, with a whole range of viewpoints (sometimes conflicting?).
So, there has to be a middle ground between full-out unquestioning acceptance of everything and dismissal as irrelevant.
Someone raised the question earlier of 'which Bible' too. For someone like me, who like Karl, is nervous about calling the Bible "the Word", (primarily because that's the Bible's own title for Jesus), and has a reasonably loose defininition of 'canon', that's not a big deal.
But if you're going to have an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, then you'd better be certain as to which books count. And the problem is, the arguments on both sides seem fairly convincing. So is (for example), the Prayer of Manassah the Word of God? If not, why not?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
I've read a variety of religious Books, and the Bible shows me peoples' experiences with a Personal God, that the others don't show me.
God is an impersonal Deity in all the other Books, including the Grande Sahib of the Sikhs, the Mary Baker Eddy SCIENCE & HEALTH, Swedenborg's Tome, the Oahspe, even the Urantia Book.
The Course In Miracles is para-personal, getting into one's deepest thoughts as a textbook in psychiatry might. But that's not really personal either.
To me, the reason I pray to God [YHVH] alone, is because He's personal, as I'm personal, and that quality comes out of Bible stories.
Em
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
But the Bible isn't one book, with one viewpoint. It's lots of books, spanning generations and cultures, with a whole range of viewpoints (sometimes conflicting?).
So, there has to be a middle ground between full-out unquestioning acceptance of everything and dismissal as irrelevant.
Someone raised the question earlier of 'which Bible' too. For someone like me, who like Karl, is nervous about calling the Bible "the Word", (primarily because that's the Bible's own title for Jesus), and has a reasonably loose defininition of 'canon', that's not a big deal.
But if you're going to have an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, then you'd better be certain as to which books count. And the problem is, the arguments on both sides seem fairly convincing. So is (for example), the Prayer of Manassah the Word of God? If not, why not?
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
I've read a variety of religious Books, and the Bible shows me peoples' experiences with a Personal God, that the others don't show me.
God is an impersonal Deity in all the other Books, including the Grande Sahib of the Sikhs, the Mary Baker Eddy SCIENCE & HEALTH, Swedenborg's Tome, the Oahspe, even the Urantia Book. f not, why not?
Emily, this board is for discussion of the Bible, not other religious books.
Moo, Kerygmania host
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
But the Bible isn't one book, with one viewpoint. It's lots of books, spanning generations and cultures, with a whole range of viewpoints (sometimes conflicting?).
So, there has to be a middle ground between full-out unquestioning acceptance of everything and dismissal as irrelevant.
Someone raised the question earlier of 'which Bible' too. For someone like me, who like Karl, is nervous about calling the Bible "the Word", (primarily because that's the Bible's own title for Jesus), and has a reasonably loose defininition of 'canon', that's not a big deal.
But if you're going to have an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, then you'd better be certain as to which books count. And the problem is, the arguments on both sides seem fairly convincing. So is (for example), the Prayer of Manassah the Word of God? If not, why not?
Oh, I'm well aware of the complexity of Scriptures. Having come from a tradition that does hold an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, I'm trying to work my way towards an understanding of how to still respect, value and learn from the Scriptures without seeing every word as divine dictation. I know it's not a simple "throw the baby out with the bathwater" business, but when I see people writing off the Scriptures as the ramblings of uneducated primitives, and then claiming that their faith is founded on Jesus alone -- the Jesus revealed IN the Scriptures -- I get a feeling of jarring cognitive dissonance.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I would be interested in knowing how we tell the difference between which parts in the Bible are mere cultural conditioning and which parts are the Real Stuff. Is there a hermeneutic, beyond "this agrees with my politics and this doesn't," or "this offends my culturally-conditioned sense of right and wrong and this does not"?
I think we can make a good start by using what we know of Jesus' behaviour and attitudes as a plumb line. So, for a start; how well does ordering genocide fit with the NT accounts of Jesus?
The problem with using the NT accounts of Jesus’s character as the complete determinant of what God’s character is like is that when Jesus came to earth the first time at the incarnation, he came to offer himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and to establish the New Covenant in his blood under which the blessings previously only available to the people of Israel could be offered to all the nations of the world (as promised to Abraham). His character displayed at this time is symbolised by a lamb, as recognised by John the Baptist at Jesus’s baptism – humble, meek, unthreatening.
But at Jesus’s second coming, the character that will be seen is that symbolised by a lion – mighty, all-powerful, triumphant; bringing judgement to all the people of the earth, the fulfillment of salvation to all his chosen people, and the destruction of evil and of all those who oppose his will. Jesus’s teaching on this is recorded in the NT, but the only time when an aspect of this character was seen during his life on earth (as far as I can think of at the moment) was at the transfiguration.
The Old Testament is essential for a complete picture, because it points forward to both aspects: the character Jesus displayed at his first coming, and the character which will be seen on his return. The offering of blessing and covenant love to those who obeyed God’s commands, and the eventual destruction of those who oppose him and do evil. The execution of the Amalekites is an essential part of God’s revelation of himself, because it pre-figures the eternal destruction of all evil, and of those who oppose God, that will happen when Jesus returns at the second coming. The Book of Revelation also speaks of both aspects of the character of Jesus as lion and lamb (see ch.5 for example).
That’s just a very sketchy outline, and all that I have time for just now.
Speaking more generally on the overall theme of the thread, I have found that an understanding of the Bible as the word of God comes from accepting all of it in its entirety, and placing myself under its authority rather than placing myself in judgement over it. Then I found that the understanding I gained from studying it with this attitude formed such a coherent and united structure, that I have come to be convinced of its supernatural origins. This works the opposite way round to any other text, in which the first step is understanding, then followed by acceptance. I suspect that with the Bible as God’s word, acceptance of it and submission to it are prerequisites for understanding it – not the other way round.
So to go back to the first two posts in this thread, perhaps the ‘word of God’ is the comprehension generated in the mind of the reader by the words of the text. More of an experiential thing than something solely intrinsic to the text itself.
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
Once again Angus, You've said it so well that all I can do is ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) .
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
You are aware that the "execution" of the Amalekites is meant to have included babes in arms? They're EVIL that must be DESTROYED?
Fuck that. Fuck that to Hell and back.
And that has to be the end for me with this fuckwitted concept of God the mass murderer, and I have no more time for it nor for defences of the utterly indefencible.
Gaa. Every time I start to think I want to get closer to God someone comes and paints him as someone I'd cosy up to Stalin before I'd go near with a bargepole.
[ 23. May 2013, 15:47: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Here's an old thread that wrestles with that question: "Ethic" Cleansing. Some interesting stuff. THe thread is still active if you want to post on it.
[ 23. May 2013, 15:59: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
Pooks - you are too kind, but I appreciate the compliment.
Karl - I'll try to post a response on the thread that Mamacita has linked to.
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
You mean like this? I think that Protestantism would traditionally be quite comfortable with the reading you would place on the term.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
A.Pilgrim: But at Jesus’s second coming, the character that will be seen is that symbolised by a lion – mighty, all-powerful, triumphant; bringing judgement to all the people of the earth, the fulfillment of salvation to all his chosen people, and the destruction of evil and of all those who oppose his will.
If this is the Jesus that will come back, then as far as I'm concerned, He can stay right where He is.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
tclune:
quote:
I think that Protestantism would traditionally be quite comfortable with the reading you would place on the term.
OK, maybe so, but not the protestants I have mostly known.
If I give you my word, that relates to some promise, and yes, you could take the Bible as God's word to fulfil the promises. But most people would want to include much more factual content about God in the phrase "the word of God". E.g. the miracle stories of the Gospels (if not more), the statements about faith and grace etc.
I don't see this as included just under the idea of the word of God as the promise of God.
But I can see virtue in the idea, and will have a think.
(I know some people have a think before they post, but there you go!)
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
I don't like the idea at all.
And i am uncomfortable to learn that a large church near me calls the Bible 'the words of Jesus'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
I don't like the idea at all.
And i am uncomfortable to learn that a large church near me calls the Bible 'the words of Jesus'.
Seriously. Moses-like, he managed to dictate his own death. In Jesus' case, at least there was the resurrection, and maybe that body can use pens.
Meanwhile, Moses and David get the shaft. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I wonder what they think the titles of the gospels are supposed to mean?
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
You mean like this? I think that Protestantism would traditionally be quite comfortable with the reading you would place on the term.
Very comfortable.
As we sang at communion today:
quote:
O send Thy Spirit, Lord, now unto me,
That He may touch my eyes, and make me see:
Show me the truth concealed within Thy Word,
And in Thy Book revealed I see the Lord.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Copying posts from the closed "Word of God = Bible?" thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Does anyone know of a good study of the formulas "The Word of God" or "The Word of the Lord" as they're actually used in Scripture? Just thinking about the passages I'm familiar with, it seems to me that these are never used to refer to "The Bible." This suggests to me that equating the concept of "the word of God" with "the Bible" is itself un-Biblical. If you know a good book on this topic, I'd love to hear about it.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Al Eluia: Does anyone know of a good study of the formulas "The Word of God" or "The Word of the Lord" as they're actually used in Scripture? Just thinking about the passages I'm familiar with, it seems to me that these are never used to refer to "The Bible."
It's almost like the people who wrote the Scriptures didn't know that one day these would be canonized as 'The Bible'
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's almost like the people who wrote the Scriptures didn't know that one day these would be canonized as 'The Bible'
I once dared to ask (elsewhere) if St Paul was aware that his letters would be considered on the spiritual level of the Torah. I was a little taken aback by the hostility with which my question was received.
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha, it seems to refer mainly to prophetic words, visions, or knowledge coming to people. In the New Testament, it refers mostly to the Hebrew Bible (esp. Mark and Matthew, with John throwing in a reference to the Psalms) and to the gospel (Luke-Acts, Paul).
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I wonder what they think the titles of the gospels are supposed to mean?
What titles are those?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I wonder what they think the titles of the gospels are supposed to mean?
What titles are those?
--Tom Clune
Well obviously they didn't originally have titles, but presumably people referring to the entire Bible as the "words of Jesus" still refer to individual books as "Mark," "1 John," and so on, rather than "1 Jesus," "2 Jesus," and so on. Although more power to them if it's the latter...
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Mark has a title. Its the first line of the text:
"The Good News of Jesus the Messiah the Son of God"
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
A.Pilgrim: But at Jesus’s second coming, the character that will be seen is that symbolised by a lion – mighty, all-powerful, triumphant; bringing judgement to all the people of the earth, the fulfillment of salvation to all his chosen people, and the destruction of evil and of all those who oppose his will.
If this is the Jesus that will come back, then as far as I'm concerned, He can stay right where He is.
Yes. That does sound like 'no more Mr nice guy' and 'forget the suffering servant mask'.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
Certainly God's promises are part of what is meant by the phrase "the Word of God" : see, e.g., Romans 9:4.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
forget the suffering servant mask'.
Nothing like a little Gnosticism inserted into a conversation about the nature of Jesus.
Anyway, as to the question of which parts of Scripture to take as authoritative about the character of God or to set aside -- like Gramps, I believe that Scripture is the cradle that holds the Christ. Lutherans are taught to read the entirety of Scripture through the lens of Christ. So to me the God who initiates genocide, "solves" the social problem of rape in a tribally acceptable way that nonetheless re-victimizes the victim on a personal level, ordains gender and social inequalities as part of the divine plan, etc. -- well, seen through the Christological lens those things seem "right strawy," and I don't feel compelled to consider them either prescriptive or authoritative as far as a glimpse into the mind of God.
(Although in the case of the rape victim forced to marry her attacker, it can be argued that the Levitical law was a step up from what may have been happening in surrounding cultures since it gave the victimized girl, now considered "spoiled goods" by her family and the community, the social protection of marriage, even if it was to the ******* who raped her, and gave him the financial burden of a wife, or another wife, and all the obligations to her clan -- to our eyes a hand-slap, but again perhaps more of a punishment than he'd have gotten in a neighboring culture. So if you try really hard I suppose you can see this now alarming bit of tribal justice as a tentative if primitive and flawed attempt to protect the victim in this case from further public shaming and thus an illustration of a people beginning to discern/model divine qualities of justice and compassion. Or you can write it off as another example of sinful human beings turning other human beings into commodities and treating serious injuries to person and spirit as contractual complications, and chalking their own encultured prejudices and preferences up to God.)
To answer the question I anticipate, about how does one read Scripture through a Christological lens without assuming factual or other inerrancy on the part of the NT writers: In the final analysis it takes a leap of faith. I don't have the theological burden of trying to reason through this paradox; it's not a "head" thing. Which puts me in the same position as the original folks who encountered the first disciples and their witness of their experience with Jesus. Who are these guys/gals that I should believe anything they say? But I do, to the extent that I'm willing to use their encounters with the one they consider God With Us as my interpretative guide for what I read in Scripture, including their own work.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
