From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Sun Sep 29 2002 - 11:29:30 EDT
I respond to two recent posts
Bob Schneider wrote:
<<
I strongly believe that anyone reading Matthew or other biblical texts
will be able to derive much that would enlighten his mind or "the eyes of
his heart" (Eph. 1:18) and bring him the message of salvation to his great
benefit; millions have over the centuries. But we all would gain a much
deeper appreciation, and perhaps greater spiritual fruits, if we were
willing to benefit from the work of devoted scholars who can teach us, for
example, how to recognize and interpret a midrashic text in a gospel or an
epistle.
>>
I did not for a moment mean to say, suggest, or
in any way imply that the study of scholarly texts
is foolishness. In one of my posts on Jonah I had
suggested that it would be wise to take a few
courses on theology before getting worked up on
interpretation of scripture.
However, "haggadic midrash" strikes me as a bit
obscure. Church libraries in Japan are typically
small, so maybe this is the fault of lack of
resources, but I had to look pretty hard to find
NT references to it and they were all as clear as
mud on its specific role. My own commentaries have
less than a paragraph on the subject. I am not a
theology major, nor do I sense any call whatsoever
to be one. If anything, my mission would be to
show that Christians can do good science, at least
as good as any atheist. At this level of difficulty,
I surmise that it becomes an exercise
approaching mastering the literature in some narrow
disciple of biology. I simply do not have time for
such exercises in biblical studies --- period.
So first is leaving theological pronouncements at an
inaccessible level where I cannot even assess whether
they are true or false. I realize that it is a challenge to write
these kinds of things, but one
should not assume that everyone on this list has a
Ph.D. in their own particular area of expertise either. Nor is even a
Ph.D. and years of experience likely to
be adequate in a lot of cases.
The second point is whereas
I suppose I shouldn't expect translators
to point out delineation's for me, I cannot
see any obvious way to trim the message
of Mt 14:22-33 in such a way that I don't
end up hacking off the whole thing. Whereas
the subject of the thread is _Peter_, I cannot
see the fine lines of separation between Jesus
and Peter clearly, and if I keep working this
way, where does that lead me? Since I confess
a faith in Christ as God crucified and raised,
I must certainly reject hacking off the whole
thing, but what then?
At least without a clear picture of how I am
supposed to do this kind of fine razor job, I
am inclined to go on faith, even if it challenges
my scientific and intellectual faculties to do so.
Lastly,
John Burgeson wrote:
<<
I am in general agreement with you on this subject, Wayne, but I have to say
I'll at least listen to the "muddle." I find Murphy's arguments interesing,
sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. Here at Iliff we get exposed to many
varieties of spiritual thinking. Nobody tells us we must buy into them, but
always we are enjoined to understand them...
>>
Yes, it was not a good choice of words to call it
"muddle", maybe I'm trying to say something like
"I'd better have a good pair of skis
and a heck of a lot of experience before I even
consider attempting to slide down any slope where
the above example appears to be leading (from my
personal feeling)". Or said another way, I'm
quite capable of sin, and if you give me that one
to freely play with at whim, well...., human beings
are rationalizing animals..... and ..... (grin).
by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 00:24:26 EDT