B
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of bivalve
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:34 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: The Bible: human word of the almighty God.doc
>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 Christians<
Although I agree that analyses appropriate for other ancient
literature are helpful in understanding the Bible, I do not see the
connection to the state of the 20th century church. Would these
methods have been any less useful for the 1st century church trying
to understand the OT? I am also unclear what role is envisioned for
the worldview. Both first century and modern worldviews need
conformed to Scripture, rather than vice versa.
Shuan replies:
Brown's point is that there are many naive interpreters of the Bible who
think that first century Christians have the same concerns and
presuppositions as we do. One of my friends even says, "The bible interprets
itself" and sees no need to ask the question, " Would a first century
Christian understand this passage the way I would?" That way lies many
mistaken interpretations, IMO
>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.<
No, as there are passages that refer to a generally audible sound
(e.g., at Jesus' baptism). This does raise the unanswerable issue,
discussed somewhere in Lewis' space trilogy, as to whether such
sounds are sound waves or a more direct manipulation of the nervous
system, but certainly we cannot rule out the possible role of sound
waves.
Shuan wrote:
There are four different accounts of Jesus' baptism, one of which (John)
does not mention a voice. This points out what Brown is getting at when he
warns against overly naive readings. Based on the four accounts, it is
unclear to me whether there was a voice, or if there was , who heard
it(Jesus only, John the Baptist or the audience)
However, with regard to the inspiration of the text of Scripture as a
whole (as opposed to the short proclamations described as heard),
there is little evidence of the means of communication, and the
preservation of individual styles argues against a verbal dictation
model. Thus, I do see a general role for human mediation, despite
questioning the first half.
> If God does not actually speak words (external or internal)<
This is a substantial expansion on the previous claim. Prophets
frequently declare "Thus says YHWH", suggesting a direct word, albeit
probably internal rather than auditory. Again, much of Scripture
does not make the claim to be such a direct word, but much does.
Shuan wrote:
True, but I am summarizing Brown, so I am leaving out some of his argument.
See George Murphy's post about the rabbis arguing about how much of the Ten
Commandments was heard. It is from that article.
>He argues that even in the words of Jesus it is dubious that one
>encounters an unconditional, timeless word from God. "The Son of
>God who speaks in the... gospels is a Jew of the first third of the
>first century, who thinks in the images of his time, speaks the
>idiom of his time, and shares much of the worldview of his time."<
Many things Jesus said fit into this; many others do not. The
imagery and language of the parables draws on everyday life of first
century Palestine. The messages of them often run contrary to
popular views, and provide a timeless point even though the setting
is no longer as familiar.
>(He cites Daniel's mistakes about the timing of various Babylonian
>interventions).<
A couple of posts have credited Daniel with historical error, but the
purported errors that I am acquainted with are imposed on the text by
skeptical criticism. What specifically is considered erroneous?
Shuan Wrote:
:29 Then, on Belshazzar's orders, Daniel was clothed in purple, a golden
collar was placed around his
neck, and he was proclaimed third ruler in the kingdom. 5:30 And in that
very night Belshazzar, the
Babylonian king,40 was killed.41 5:31 (6:1)42 So Darius the Mede took
control of the kingdom at about
sixty-two years of age.
T
This is definitely incorrect. Darius became king many years after
Belshazzar, and was preceded by other Persian Kings, notably Cyrus the
Great.
http://www.crystalinks.com/iran.html
See also the discussion at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02226c.htm
I will discuss approaches to historical problems in an upcoming post
The dating of Bablylonian interventions sounds like the claim that
Daniel 1:1 is in error; however, the multiple Bablylonian incursions
into Palestine provides ample opportunity for hauling off Daniel et
al. at the time specified, before the more extensive deportations.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 26 2002 - 15:58:20 EDT