RE: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)

"It is worth asking, esp. in the evangelical world, whether we are not
expecting too much of the Bible as a rule book of propositions rather
than as a book that reflects active theological thinking."

Hi Pete- overall- as far as Christian interpretation of things, I pretty much agree with you. However, my question is more specific to the time and place of Jesus' "active theological thinking."

When Jesus talked about "turning the other cheek" I think what he meant, given the context is pretty clear. And I think we might agree on what he meant. My question goes beyond what most Christians want to do, and this is ask the question "was Jesus correct?" (I'm sure most Christian philosophers are trained to ask such questions so it is no problem for most of them; but all other Christians probably think it is out-of-bounds to "question God.")

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Pete Enns
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:49 AM
To: Murray Hogg
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)

I'll try to comment more later, but I agree with this. A former
professor of mine, Paul Hanson, used to talk about the "form/reform"
dynamic on the OT, where particular ways of thinking gain assent but
then are themselves later reformed/changed. Chronicles is one global
example of this.

It is worth asking, esp. in the evangelical world, whether we are not
expecting too much of the Bible as a rule book of propositions rather
than as a book that reflects active theological thinking.

Some of you may no longer be wondering why I left WTS..... :-)

Pete

On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Murray Hogg wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> I can see where the Talmud might be an interesting analogue - but
> I'd have to play with it a bit myself.
>
> As it is, the suggestion spawns one random thought:
> Regardless of what dates we put on the various OT books and portions
> thereof it seems to be pretty evident that the OT isn't the
> unvarnished account of Israel's history that many would like it to
> be. But this fact alone suggests that one doesn't need to even go as
> far as the Talmud to discover a dynamic engagement with the
> tradition as we already see just this very thing within the pages of
> the canonical OT itself. The idea, then, that the covenant community
> EVER had a static notion of scripture might be a tad unrealistic and
> we may well need to accept that dynamic engagement with the
> tradition has ALWAYS been part-and-parcel of the covenant
> community's practice.
>
> Of course, the tradition eventually ends up becoming codified -
> first in the OT and subsequently in the Talmud and NT (same sort of
> thing happens in Islam with the Koran and Hadiths) - but I wonder
> (and it's just an idle musing for now) just what this suggests for
> our theory of Scripture? All too often the focus is on the
> codification. But what happens if one focuses on the dynamic nature
> of the tradition in its formation and subsequent reception?
>
> Could it be that the discontinuity and the continuity are, in fact,
> one and the same thing? That is, might it not be the case that the
> one constant throughout the entire history of the tradition is that
> the tradition itself has always been dynamically appropriated?
>
> Perhaps our maxim should be "Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme
> chose" or something of that order?
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
> Pete Enns wrote:
>> I think trajectory is a good model for the relationship between the
>> testament.
>> Another model I have toyed with--very simply--is that the NT is
>> analogous to to the Talmud. Both reflect attempts to engage the
>> Bible/OT in view of changing circumstances: for Jews, the exile and
>> for Christians the death and resurrection of the messiah.
>> I think the trajectory and Talmud models together aim at addressing
>> the continuity and discontinuity seen in the NT vis-a-vis the OT.
>> To get back to the original point, I think Bernie is concerned
>> about the fact that discontinuity is something that resides in a
>> book that is supposedly written on some level by God.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 8 12:05:31 2009