Two recent statements in the same recent note prompt some comments. Both reflect widely held sentiments. I'll take them one at a time:
FIRST STATEMENT
Allen writes: "A scholar who may spend a lifetime studying the Bible, but who is not a believer, will never truly understand the Bible, for, as God says, it is foolishness to the unbeliever (sic)."
I wish people would stop (1) putting words in God's mouth; and (2) making a claim that needs supporting evidence by merely quoting Scripture. (I can't make any sense out of this reference except that it might be to I Cor. 1:25, an inappropriate verse.) I respect that numerous believers over the centuries have held a similar sentiment in good faith, but I have have to say that this is precisely what we have here, a statement taken on faith and held on faith. Has it ever been tested? If not, it is a statement of faith and not an established fact.
Frankly, I doubt that simply by virtue of being a believer, one has an advantage of understanding the Bible over one who is not. I sincerely believe that we who are Christians do gain spiritual insights from Holy Scripture as a result of our faith, but I'm not certain that we trump the unbeliever on every level of understanding. To convince me one would have to design a survey that would gather enough data to make a convincing argument.
Frankly, I have heard a lot of nonsense spoken about biblical texts by persons, whose sincerety and faith I don't for a moment doubt, claiming that their faith is their justification, and that they got their interpretation from the Spirit. I like the response of my Southern Baptist minister brother-in-law's seminary professor to students making such claims: "Whose spirit?"
Here's one reason why I am sceptical. The following story is true as recent history in which I was an observer. Two decades ago Berea College hired a young Ph.D. as a one year sabbatical replacement in New Testament. I was acting academic dean that year and while conducting an informal, confidential survey with every student who visited my office, asking who is the best teacher they had at Berea, this man's name came up an astonishing number of times. When I asked the students why they considered him their best, they said that he was an inspiring teacher that made the Bible, and especially Jesus, come alive. One student said that this teacher "brought him back to Christ." It was only after he left that I learned that this teacher was an atheist. "Well," I thought, resorting to the old cliche, "God does work in mysterious ways."
SECOND STATEMENT:
The Bible "is written in plain language for plain people. It is not the exclusive realm of long-haired, grey bearded old scholars or clergy who deign to instruct the ignorant on what the Bible really says."
As soon as I got to "long-haired" my suspicion that this was an ad hominem argument was confirmed. It would be easy to ignore it, but an important point has been raised by this writer, and I should like to say a few words about it. Again, there is an assumption here that ordinary people do quite well by themselves and don't need biblical scholars to tell them what the Bible "really says" (i.e., really means).
One of my students who took an Old Testament course said that he wished the professor had not spent his time on all the literary and historical stuff "and just let the plain truth of the Bible shine through." I held off replying that the truth of the Bible is hardly plain in so many respects, and that is why we have scholars to help us understand the contexts of biblical texts, because I knew he would learn that when he took my Gospel of John in Greek course; and sure enough he did. John is a fine example of simple vocabulary and simple syntax, and yet what a profound work of dramatic genius and literary and theological subtilety! I was grateful for all of the fine Johannine scholarship and commentaries of people like Raymond Brown, Louis Martyn, Barnabas Lindars, and F. F. Bruce, among others, that illuminated this gospel so brilliantly for me and my students. We both learned far more than we would have simply by reading the text. It is one thing to read a translation that a ploughman can comprehend; it is another to delve into its historical, cultural, literary, religious, theological, rhetorical, and other contexts. And who would ever think that The Revelation is a plain text, self-evident to any reader?
I spent two years in an adult Bible study group at Berea College before retiring. We read Mark, the Sermon on the Mount, and learned about Q. As we pondered Mark pericope by pericope and shared our ideas, I was constantly enlightened by insights from the non-scholars in the group, who read the text with care and devotion. Yet the Bible study was successful chiefly because it was led by Edwin Broadhead, a scholar of the gospels, who had published a book on Matt. 5-7, and had others in the works on Mark and Q. He could provide us with implications of meaning of the text that would not be apparent to anyone unschooled in 1st century Jewish culture. And he treated each person in the group, scholar, preacher, or lay person, with affection and respect--no "deigning" here. We began each session with prayer, and I do not doubt the Holy Spirit was with us in our work of seeking to understand the Scriptures, but she had all of our human effort to build upon.
Bob Schneider
rjschn39@bellsouth.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 17 2002 - 21:40:34 EST