On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:30:20 +0100, Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>Gary
>See below
>> >I cannot see the problem of the Israelites "borrowing" from their
>> >surrounding culture though that would shatter some evangelical views of
>> >inspiration.
>>
>> In general, nor can I. But your first example above tends to give
>> me the impression that Moses was a bit of a charlatan - claiming
>> divine inspiration for the tabernacle design (also Heb. 12) when
>> all the time he was 'plagiarising' what he had seen in Midian....
>> I guess the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but it
>> does give one pause for thought.
>
>One can see this as learning from rather than plagiarism.
As I say, I don't have a problem with this concept in general. But in this
specific case, we read in Exodus (repeated many times, if I remember
rightly, and certainly repeated in Hebrews) that *God* told Moses,
'See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown
you on the mountain.'
If in fact this was a pattern that had not been shown him by God on the
mountain but rather a pattern he had seen whilst he was amongst the
Midianites (and note, I am not here saying that this is not the case) then
it seems that he - or the subsequent writer - was at the least being a bit
economical with the truth here.
>
>Some of Paul's ways of puttting this ideas across are partly based on
>contemprary non-Jewish ideas. Recent scholarship, which I am not up in,
>stresses Paul's use of contemporary rhetoric. I dont see why inspiration
>must be like Joseph Smiths gold plates for the book of Mormon. Why cannot
>biblical writers be inspired to use ideas from the culture in which they
>lived, be it Jewish, Greek or Egyptian? Luke was inspired to gather together
>a coherent life of Jesus and account of the early church by using
>contemporary techniques.
They can, indeed; as I say, in general I don't have a problem with this
being the case. Nor do I have any problem with Bob's post, which I found
very interesting. It's only in those cases where 'special' revelation - for
want of a better word - is claimed, that a problem seems to arise. I'm not
sure yet what all the implications of this are. There are other issues in the
Pentateuch which are similarly problematical, especially some of the
instructions about slaves, which are attributed to God. Such as (I forget
the exact references and wording, but to paraphrase) It's OK for a man to
knock the living daylights out of his slave, just so long as the slave gets
up after a few days, because after all, the slave is his property; and,
Slaves, like chattels, can be passed on as an inheritance.
With passages like this, it's no wonder it took so long to get slavery
abolished. I don't have a satisfactory explanation of such issues yet.
Maybe I never will.
>
>I am aware I am blurring the old categories of natural and special
>revelation, but we need to and see how our faith is incarnated or incultured
>in various cultures. I dont have time to develop this.
That's unfortunate.
>
>>
>> But then is the LOGOS of John borrowed from the Greeks.
>As George pointed out it has roots in the OT but has parallels in the Greek
>culture and thus a superb example of inculturation for the early church to
>use.
>> >
>> > > It's certainly interesting... thanks.
>
>always remember that in the words of the NT scholar George Ladd the bible is
>THE WORD OF GOD IN THE WORDS OF MEN,>
A very wise statement. Even so, being the Word of God ought to lend it some
degree of reliability over and above that which would be expected otherwise.
/Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Mon Jul 26 06:57:09 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 26 2004 - 06:57:09 EDT