George,
Thanks for your remarks. I think we are in substantial agreement, and that the issue is more a matter of degree than distinction. My concern, which I may not have articulated clearly enough, is with the assumption, often unstated, that the contributions of biblical scholars and critics who are not believers are ipso facto of lesser or no value compared to those of believers. I appreciate your comments on fiducia. It is because of my trust in God that I approach Scripture with the desire to learn more about God and the meaning of God's reign, and the confidence that the eyes of my heart will be enlightened as well as my mind. At the same time I want my mind and my heart to benefit from the knowledge and insights of others, whether or not they be believers.
As for modern critical study, I find much of value, but like yourself, think that in the final analysis it is the whole text as well as its canonical relationships with other texts that count. I love examining the way Luke and Matthew used Mark, and considering whether Mark was familiar with Paul's letters, and all those other intellectual questions NT scholars explore; but what is more important to me is the message that Mark offers his community and ours, the portrait of Christ and his good news, and its implications for living life in the reign of God for me and my own age. It is the invitation to change my view of reality, change my way of seeing-- which is what I understand metanoia ("repent") to mean in Mark 1:14--that drives my faith to seek understanding.
Grace and peace,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: george murphy
To: Robert Schneider
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: BIBLE: Who better interprets?
Bob -
I'm in a good deal of agreement with what you say in your "First Statement" here but want to add another dimension. Certainly non-Christians can have a great deal of insight into biblical texts - language, cultural context, development & interpretation of individual texts &c. & Christians have to take seriously what they say and learn from them.
But theology is, in the classic phrase, a matter of "faith in search of understanding." A non- Christian can know the facts of Christian theology - indeed, can know what Athanasius, or Luther, or Barth, or any other theologian said better than most Christians, just as a Christian can be an expert on Islam or Mithraism or some other faith. But there is something crucial missing if there is not faith - by which I mean not simply acceptance of the truth of facts but trust. In terms of the old analysis of faith, non-Christians may have notitia & even assensus but not fiducia. Or to put it differently, they may have the right words but not the music.
As this relates to the understanding of scripture, I think one of the main problems of the modern critical study of the Bible is that it has been very good at analysis, but then often has not put the texts back together. It's important to be able to analyze the sources & redactions &c of the gospels. But then it's equally important to put things back together, because finally what is canonical scripture isn't Q & "special Lukan material" &c by themselves but the Gospel of Luke (e.g.). & here the matter of Christisn commitment comes in, for the recognition of a canon is really something that is done within & for the Christian community. For non-Christians there's no particular reason to make any distinction between canonical & non-canonical texts - no intrinsic reason not to consider the Gospels of Thomas or Bartholomew as authoritative as Mark. (I realize that some Christian scholars would hold the same view.)
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
Robert Schneider wrote:
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."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 18 2002 - 11:29:37 EST