Agreed.The point is that over the course of OT history, Israel came to
realize that God had plans for a "future and a Hope" for humanity that went
beyond this life.Brown reminds us Job's protest against simplistic views of
suffering should still be heard even if we now understand that there will be
a meaningful afterlife.
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Morbey [mailto:gmorbey@wlu.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:09 AM
To: Shuan Rose
Cc: Stuart d Kirkley; Asa
Subject: RE: The Bible: human word of the almighty God.doc
While it is true that there does not seem to be much evidence of afterlife
and resurrection of the body in OT religion, it may be that we are looking
at the question in the wrong way. Perhaps examining the development of
apocalyptic and hope in relation to God's overal cosmic purposes for his
creation - God seeing that what he made was good - would allow us to
discover hints of human desire to be with God - and God's redeeming love
desire to have that goodness of his creation including his people with him
forever. Such hints pepper the OT story line of redemption. J. Gerald
Janzen touches on some of these ideas in his INTERPRETATION commentary on
Job. See especially his handling of Job 14:14-17
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Shuan Rose wrote:
>
>
> Actually, Job 14:7-12 is even stronger in Job's denial of an after life.
> This is from the NET Bible translation:
>
>
> 14:7 "But there is hope for18 a tree:19
> If it is cut down, it will sprout again,
> and its new shoots will not fail.
> 14:8 Although its roots may grow old20 in the ground
> and its stump begins to die21 in the soil,22
> 14:9 at the scent23 of water it will flourish24and put forth25
shoots
> like a new plant.
> 14:10 But man26 dies and is powerless;27
> he expires--and where is he?28
> 14:11 As29 water disappears from the sea,30
> or a river drains away and dries up,
> 14:12 so man lies down and does not rise;
> until the heavens are no more,31
> they32 will not awake
> nor arise from their sleep.
>
> It is well known among scholars that for most of OT times the Hebrews do
> not have a well developed concept of the afterlife. Neither God nor Job's
> friends, for example, say that Job will be rewarded in the afterlife. And
> after the suffering is over, Job is rewarded in this life.Deuteronomy
> promises many blessings for obeying the law, including a long life-NOT
life
> after death.Acording to Brown, the dueterocanonical book, Ecclestiacus,
AKA
> Sirach, also explicitly denies an afterlife, and this book is dated on
> internal evidence to 180 B.C.
>
> It is only in late OT times, that there begins to be talk of an afterlife
> (II Macabees and Daniel, both written during the times of the Maccabean
> wars[175-134 B.C.], are the first to talk of the afterlife).
> I don't know where Christian Science theolgy is on this, but the scholarly
> consensus on the OT is quite firm about this.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Stuart d Kirkley
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:45 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: The Bible: human word of the almighty God.doc
>
>
> An interesting post, except that I fail to see how Job 14:13-22 is
> any denial of an afterlife. There really doesn't seem to be any
> explicit, implicit, or even any allusion to the denial of an
> afterlife. Maybe i'm wrong, but I read it through several times and
> the whole chapter as well, and I don't see it. What it says to me is
> that Job is simply bemoaning the frailty of mortal existence, and
> that is all. There really doesn't seem to be any reference to the
> immortal soul, or I should say, the denial of it. There might be
> something in verses 10-12 which refers to this , but again I think
> Job is referring to mortal existence, not immortal life, he even says
> that they shall not be raised out of their sleep. If their is no
> afterlife, then how can they even be asleep, no afterlife means no
> life whatsoever, ie: the complete obliteration of existence, yet Job
> never says this at all. He is simply lamenting the suffering sense of
> mortal existence, I really don't see any denial of i!
> mmo
> rtality here. I'm afraid you will have to prove me wrong if you
> maintain there is such denial. If Brown maintains this, then I have
> to consider his work and premise as being suspect. Error results not
> from the truth which is contained in the scriptures, but by the human
> reading of them, or should I say, misreading of them.
>
> Stuart K.
>
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:31:26
> 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 ¶The
> >Critical Meaning of the Bible" 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 Christians". 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.
> >
> >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. ¶If 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.
> >
> >He considers and rejects liberal approaches to the question, which claim
> >that the Bible is simply the word of man. He also rejects a conservative
> >approach exemplified by Carl Henryˆs statement, "the Bible is a
> >propositional revelation of the unchanging truth of God." He argues that
> >this collapses inspiration into revelation. The traditional view is that
> >the whole Bible is inspired but only some parts transmit revelation.
Brown
> >argues that some authors believe that they received divine communications
> >(St. Paul, Amos), whereas others (for example the writer of Ecclesiastes)
> >make no such claim.
> >
> >Even when we turn to the law and prophets, where the writers are
conscious
> >of having received a divine revelation, we find different ways of
> expressing
> >the word of God received by them. There is a poetic and prose form of
the
> >same oracle (compare Jeremiah 7 with Jeremiah 26). Prophetic oracles
> appear
> >to conflict (Isaiah 2:1;compare Joel 3:10 RSV). There are also two
> versions
> >of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20: 1217; Deuteronomy 5: 6-21).
According
> >to Brown, the biblical critic would be inclined to say that message is
from
> >God but the words are from particular human authors, and are a
> >¶reformulation of an unspecified divine revelation". 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."
> >
> >Brown discusses the problem of inerrancy. He argues that attempts to
> >explain away errors and inconsistencies in scripture often do more harm
> than
> >good. He says that there is indisputable evidence of not only
scientific,
> >but also historical errors in the Bible. (He cites Danielˆs mistakes
about
> >the timing of various Babylonian interventions). He goes on to state
that
> >there are even theological errors. For instance, Job 14: 13 -22 denies
the
> >possibility of an afterlife.
> >
> >He argues that there are two approaches that one can take. You can decide
a
> >priori that there can be no errors in the Bible, and that the writer
does
> >not mean what he appears to state. He describes the approach as ¶an
> >unmitigated disaster resulting in the acceptance of numerous
> >implausibilities and turning exegesis into apologetics." Another
> approach
> >is ¶to realize that there is a kenosis involved in God communicating his
> >message in human words... if one discovers (errors), one does not seek to
> >explain them away; one recognizes that God is willing to work with human
> >beings and other limitations, and each contribution is only part of a
> larger
> >presentation of biblical truth."
> >
> >The human author of Job was wrong in denying an afterlife. However, his
> >book is now part of a canonical collection that includes later parts of
the
> >Old Testament, which speak of an afterlife (Isaiah 26; Daniel 12), and a
> New
> >Testament that unanimously affirms an afterlife, and so "the author's
> >rejection of an afterlife" can be seen in the context of the "gradual
> >perception of a larger truth."
> >
> >How then can the Bible be regarded as inerrant? (BTW, I know of no
> biblical
> >writer who claims that he, or the Bible, is without error). Brown cites
a
> >statement by the Pontifical Bible Commission that "the books of scripture
> >must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error
the
> >truth with God wanted to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our
> >salvation." In other words, "everything in scripture is inerrant to the
> >extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God."
> >
> >Brown concludes by stating "the fact that the word of the Bible is time
> >conditioned and human makes it no less ëof Godˆ ". He argues that just
as
> >Jesus is fully human and fully divine, so is Godës written word. A
believer
> >in revelation and inspiration can nonetheless hold that the inspired
> >Scripture is human, time-conditioned, and subject to error, precisely
> >because the Bible is the "human word of God ¶ just as "the word of the
> >eternal Father having taken the himself the weak flesh of humanity,
became
> >like other human beings."
> >
> >FURTHER READING
> >
> >Raymond Brown, ¶Critical Meaning of the Bible"
> >Raymond Brown, ¶Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine"
> >J.L. McKenzie, ¶The Old Testament Without Illusion"
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Win a first-class trip to New Orleans and vacation Elvis Style!.
> Enter NOW!
> http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 26 2002 - 16:07:16 EDT