Shuan Rose wrote:
> This is a two-part post on the important issue of how we should view the
> Bible. The title of this post is taken from chapter one of the book ÏThe
> Critical Meaning of the BibleÓ by the late Raymond E. Brown, S. S. Brown was
> a Catholic New Testament scholar who spent a substantial portion of his life
> advocating for the validity of a modern reading of the Bible. By "modern
> reading" Mr. Brown meant a reading informed by biblical criticism, which he
> defined as "an analysis such as one would use for determining the meaning of
> other ancient literature." He argues that such an analysis is needed
> because "no 20th-century church" is the same as a church or churches of new
> Testament Times, and that inevitably 20th-century Christians have a
> worldview different from that of first century ChristiansÓ. A lot of people
> may object that a Roman Catholic scholar who espouses the
> historical-critical method has nothing to say to a (mostly) Protestant list
> of scientists who are suspicious of such an approach to Scriptural
> interpretation. However, I am convinced that the recipients of this list
> would profit by at least considering what he has to say.
This may be true for the ASA list but if so, I hope it will
change. One
of the benefits of the improved ecumenical climate since Vatican II has been
that serious biblical scholars & theologians no longer restrict their study to
writers of their own tradition. When I'm to preach on a text from
the Gospel of
John the first thing I usually look at, after re-reading the text, is Brown's
2-volume commentary in the Anchor Bible. His more recent books _The Birth of
the Messiah_ and _The Death of the Messiah_ are magisterial: I
always regretted
that he didn't live to write _The Resurrection of the Messiah_. In discussing
the work of others, Brown generally notes points where there has been a
particular tendency for either Roman or Protestant authors to
interpret texts in
ways that are favorable to their own traditions.
> Brown asks the question, "What does it mean when we call the Bible the word
> of God"? He asks, "Does God speak?" Since most would agree that God does
> not speak in terms of emitting sound waves, then any revelation from God
> necessarily comes through human mediation. ÏIf God does not actually speak
> words (external or internal) one must admit clearly and firmly that every
> word pertaining to God in the history of the human race including the
> biblical period is a time conditioned word, affected by the limitations of
> human insight and problems. The attribution of a word to God, Jesus, or the
> church would not enable that word to escape that limitation." This is
> Raymond Brown's thesis.
I can't remember what this is from (another participant in a
Bible study
~20 years mentioned it) but somewhere Brown noted the following _apropos_ the
question of God "speaking". The rabbis debated the question of just
how much of
the revelation of the law at Sinai, beginning with Ex.20:2, God
actually "spoke"
audibly. (Note Ex.20:1: "Then God spoke all these words.") Some
said that God
literally said the whole thing. Others argued that that was too
simplistic, and
that God only said "I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of
Egypt." the rest being communicated to Moses in some nonverbal manner. But God
speaking a whole sentence still seems pretty anthropomorphic, and some of the
rabbis thought that God only said the first _word_, _'anokhi_, "I". But then
they decided that that was still more than was needed. God literally
spoke only
the first _letter_. & that's interested because the first letter is aleph,
which is a _silent_ "smooth breathing".
So God actually said " ".
Perhaps some will see this as a put-down of the Bible. If so, they've
missed the point.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 25 2002 - 02:34:06 EDT