 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
 |
Posted Nov 23, 2009; 7:47 pm |
|
Hi Gay Lynn
In a discussion like this “nit picking” is appropriate, IMO. We are after all trying to nail down some fairly nuanced [but important] shifts of meaning.
When I said the Scripture are “the material data” I should have put that phrase in quotes since it is an analogy. As you correctly point out they are not “material data” in the sense that they are made of paper or stone, etc. They are however the only objective source of God’s revelation [in contrast to dreams or an inner insight]. IMO, they are the “material” of revelation. In the physical world- our senses try to give shape to “what is” via our senses. We know a piece of cheese by texture, colour, smell and taste- and it seems to sit silently on the table :) The Scriptures enter us by reading or hearing or preaching or . . . They don’t bypass human sensibility with all of its weaknesses- but the weakness is not in the data itself. The data just is.
This, IMO, is not conflating God and the Scriptures any more than the Mona Lisa “is” da Vinci. But it seems to me that trying to figure out how he put the paint onto the canvas adds only marginally to the experience we are supposed to have when we look at his painting. In a purely natural context a brilliant artist is able to convey astonishing things with paint and a writer with words. Added to that natural aspect of the Bible as literature is the sacredness that God imbues His Scriptures with.
My quarrel with Ramm [from an earlier question] is that it seems like- first, he seems trying to understand the Mona Lisa but taking apart the layers off the painting. Secondly, it seems to me that there is no room for revelation in his definition of Biblical theology.
In that I believe that the Scriptures are sacred and have a power that is beyond the material cosmos- I understand why you read me as “giving language [the Scriptures] itself the ability to function as a divine materiality, in and of itself.” The Scriptures are not God- but they are His work of revelation and they are sacred. That’s a very unique category. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 24, 2009; 1:41 pm |
|
James, thanks for your response - I have more questions for you since I am still trying to understand well what biblical theology is and how it works as divine revelation. You wrote: | Quote: | My quarrel with Ramm [from an earlier question] is that it seems like- first, he seems trying to understand the Mona Lisa but taking apart the layers off the painting. Secondly, it seems to me that there is no room for revelation in his definition of Biblical theology.
|
I am assuming that you meant to reference James Barr rather than 'Ramm' in your post. If I am mistaken on this point, please let me know. 
In response to what you wrote, I want to put forward these ideas of Barr's for further discussion.  
I am offering fairly unedited work here drawn from reviews of Barr’s work. I was wondering how you would respond to some of these ideas.
 In particular I am wondering what you think about the three levels of reflection in theological work. I am also curious what you think about the relationship between natural revelation and the special revelation of the scriptures.
James Barr, in The Concept of Biblical Theology, expresses the opinion that the older biblical theologians naively equated biblical theology with divine revelation
In the past most biblical theologians decried philosophy and natural theology as alien to the spirit of the Bible and maintained that the avoidance of these assumptions was necessary to biblical theology. They assumed that the biblical worldview was free of the assumptions of natural knowledge, and they put their reconstructed version of the biblical worldview in opposition to philosophy. Barr condemns this view. Those biblical theologians actually were resonating the assumptions of Karl Barth. They actually had a philosophy of their own--it was a "semi-existentialism" (p. 168)--and their own working knowledge of philosophy was minimal. They assumed that the Hebraic worldview undergirded the Second Testament exclusively, but they drastically underestimated the importance of Hellenistic influence and Intertestamental literature. Barr earlier critiqued the assumptions about the so-called Hebraic and Greek worldviews and their supposed opposition to one another in THE SEMANTICS OF BIBLICAL LANGUAGE (1961).
Primary level of reflection: biblical theology - We must recognize that the bible is the norm and source for theology, but it is not theology itself.
Biblical theologies may be distinguished from other scholarly attempts to analyze the Bible by virtue of their propensity to analyze and assess together all the diverse texts in the Bible in a coherent religious scheme. Other methods isolate individual texts for consideration or atomize the Bible into many little parts by stressing the differences between texts.
Secondary level of reflection: critical and historical theologies - Critical methods do not really use the biblical text to reconstruct history, either political or social; rather, they merely seek to find the ideational development within a text. Knowing the ideational development of texts cannot lead to a sufficient amount of data to write a history of any people. A holistic theology must take this into account when diverse texts in the canon come from those different eras and reflect diverse pieties, despite the winnowing of later biblical redactors.
Third level of reflection – practical or faith commitment theology - third level of reflection, wherein the theologian uses the reigning theological assumptions of his or her age to craft a theological exposition that addresses the needs of the modern faith community. First Testament ( Old Testament) theologians are divided between those who believe biblical theology should be done from the perspective of faith and those who believe theology must be done with objectivity. Barr believes that both agendas may be accomplished, if we follow the guidelines articulated by Krister Stendahl, who said that we must seek both "what the text meant" in its own age (objectivity) and "what it means" today in the church (faith commitment). Methodologies that inquire after the original intent of the text fare better at coming to some serious theological understanding of the text that can be used meaningfully today.
Barr issues a stern critique of post-modern interpretation and literary criticism, maintaining that they do not produce theology. These newer interpretive techniques, though they are very interesting and quite valuable, do not produce theology. When their practitioners use these methods and produce theology, the theology emerges more directly from their own prior religious training and insights (which is true also for practitioners of traditional critical methodologies).
The popular contemporary approach to see narrative as theology is criticized by Barr. Stories are not theology; they provide raw materials for theology. Stories must be interpreted to become theology, and sometimes later First Testament texts do precisely that with the earlier narratives.
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Nov 24, 2009; 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 24, 2009; 2:00 pm |
|
James wrote: | Quote: | | In that I believe that the Scriptures are sacred and have a power that is beyond the material cosmos- I understand why you read me as “giving language [the Scriptures] itself the ability to function as a divine materiality, in and of itself.” The Scriptures are not God- but they are His work of revelation and they are sacred. That’s a very unique category. |
I agree that the scriptures are sacred and belong to a very unique category. I also agree that divine inspiration is a power that originates beyond the material cosmos.
This is what I wonder about: How you would explain the idea 'that language has the ability to function aa a divine materiality' to a 'newbie' in the Christian faith?
Do they need to take this premse about the ability of language 'by faith'?
I would think that they should take the premise that scripture holds an authoritative role within the Christian Church, as a 'faith commitment' while remaining open to questioning explanations of how language works? Am I nit-picking again?  |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 24, 2009; 3:34 pm |
|
Oops! I don't know how the Ramm/Barr mix up came into my head- but there it is.
On the Biblical theology question- I think that Thursday should interact with you on that one. I am only responding to the quotes you presented and that is not an indictment of BARR in general- because it has been along time since I read anything of his- as my goof-up seems to indicate :) My definition of Biblical theology is strictly my working definition.
Re: the new Christian question. My experience is that they seem to quickly have an instinctive high regard for the Scriptures and that the Scriptures begin their divine work. My concern is that we don't mess up what is with extra Biblical concepts [such as inerrancy :) ] |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 24, 2009; 4:50 pm |
|
James wrote: | Quote: | | On the Biblical theology question- I think that Thursday should interact with you on that one |
I would welcome the interaction of anyone who is interested. 
I have found my dialogue with Thursday to be helpful and insightful.
James also wrote: | Quote: | | My concern is that we don't mess up what is with extra Biblical concepts [such as inerrancy :) ] |
   |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Nov 25, 2009; 10:32 am |
|
James wrote
| Quote: | | They(the scriptures) are however the only objective source of God’s revelation [in contrast to dreams or an inner insight]. IMO, they are the “material” of revelation. In the physical world- our senses try to give shape to “what is” via our senses. We know a piece of cheese by texture, colour, smell and taste- and it seems to sit silently on the table :) The Scriptures enter us by reading or hearing or preaching or . . . They don’t bypass human sensibility with all of its weaknesses- but the weakness is not in the data itself. The data just is. |
I am not a theologian - have not taken one formal course on the subject - so some of the terminology in this thread and the importance of the nuances sometimes escapes me. However, upon reading the above quote and the rest of the post in which it appears, it occurred to me that the same weaknesses of human sensibility which characterize us as readers or hearers of scripture were affecting the human writers of the scriptures. If the "word of the Lord" came to prophets by dreams, visions, or inner knowings, how is their recollections of those, which they later wrote down, more "objective" than the dream or vision? The only thing that I recall God writing himself was the tablets of stone.
Since God is infinite and the human writers of scripture were not; since his thoughts are higher than ours, his ways past finding out, then surely the scriptures as we have them are not the "original data." The word of God in the mind of God may be, but the understanding the prophet took from the vision in which that word was conveyed, his recollection of it, the language in which he wrote it, were all human.
I love the Bible. I trust it. I think God watches over his word and has amazingly preserved the scriptures. But I am quite nervous about claiming for the Bible what I don't exactly see God claiming for it. I do believe men of God wrote as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. But we do not have a book which was carried down from heaven by angels nor found inscribed on gold tablets in a cave somewhere. Our sacred book is composed of a variety of writings penned over a long time span by various men. For reasons I cannot fully grasp, but of which I am in awe, God said (roughly) "let us make man n our image and likeness and give him dominion in the earth." Throughout all human history, God has worked with and through man. Even to redeem, reconcile and restore the whole creation he took on human form. And he has revealed to us by his Spirit that which even angels longed to know. It is fantastic. But for reasons unknown to me, God has thereby chosen to limit himself in the earthly realm. His plan includes us with all our human limitations. Likewise his revelations come to and us humans and via us humans to others.
Throughout all the time and events recorded in scripture, I see God revealing himself directly to humans and not restricting his revelations to what they could glean from the previous writings. Jesus said he was giving us the Holy Spirit (he did not say the Bible) to guide us into all truth. The Bible is or contains truth, but it is not "all truth." Because it is true, anything anyone now claims to be a revelation from God but is at odds with the revelations in scripture must be rejected. But that does not mean there is no revelation now. And if there is, how is its content any less objective than the same type of revelation which occurred 2500 years ago? |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 25, 2009; 11:13 pm |
|
Lornewell,
thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject. I appreciated you post. It is a good reminder that Scriptures point to God rather than containing God...  |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 26, 2009; 11:01 am |
|
| Lorne ... I too appreciated your post. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Nov 26, 2009; 11:04 am |
|
| I'm in danger of making it a crowd, but me three. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| And I appreciate it as well . . . but :) |
Posted Nov 26, 2009; 11:27 am |
|
Hi Lorne
I fully agree that the Scriptures are not God and don’t even contain God.
I also agree and have affirmed that God’s revelation is not at all limited to the Scripture.
What I do hold is-
1. That the Scriptures are sacred [they are thus described in the Bible]. This is a special and narrowly used Biblical category.
2. That the Scriptures are an “objective” revelation of God- much like creation itself and in contrast to dreams, feelings, insights, etc. We cannot easily sit down and discuss your dream. We can sit down and observe a rock or study a text.
3. The hitch, I suspect, is that I see the Scriptures- and not the agents of their delivery [ie the inclinations of the writers]- being the revelation.
As to the matter of making claims about the Bible that God does not make- I stand to be corrected on that- but I don’t think I am. They are sacred and they are God’s revelation.
At a purely secular level, I think that often Biblical scholars treat the Scriptures with less deference than those who love Shakespeare do of his writings. When I have put this to Biblical scholars their defense is that it is because the stakes are higher. I can appreciate this argument if it were not for the fact that the Scriptures are God’s revelation. |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 26, 2009; 5:31 pm |
|
I hesitate in writing this response since I think Lornewel articulated a point of view which I largely agree with so well...
An excerpt from Lornewel's post says:
| Quote: |
Since God is infinite and the human writers of scripture were not; since his thoughts are higher than ours, his ways past finding out, then surely the scriptures as we have them are not the "original data." The word of God in the mind of God may be, but the understanding the prophet took from the vision in which that word was conveyed, his recollection of it, the language in which he wrote it, were all human. |
I like the distinction between God and Scriptures--what is referred to above as the "original data". Thanks Lornewel for articulating this so plainly . This idea helps shed light on what I was speaking about towards the beginning of this thread re: the significance of historical event. IMO revelation occurs in the "event" in which God reveals himself--this may be the burning bush, the life of Jesus, or any variety of other examples recorded in Scripture. The Christ event is, for me, the pinnacle of God's revelation--so much so that he is called "the Word of God". I agree with Lornewel that Scripture is trustworthy and contains truth and IMO is the word of God in a secondary sense. The Scriptures are witnesses to the revelatory events but are not the events themselves. In this way Scriptures are intended to be a witness to something and are to point beyond themselves to the God behind the text. The "human" aspect that Lorne touched on is also of vital importance to me for many reasons. First it shows that the revelatory events took place in real human history and was observed by real human beings. Secondly it shows the significant role that interpretation plays.
Scriptures are still authoritative, inspired and "inerrant" (see thread on inerrancy) however I think I disagree with James when he says that | Quote: | | is that I see the Scriptures- and not the agents of their delivery [ie the inclinations of the writers]- being the revelation. |
. Although I am not sure what is meant by "agents of their delivery". |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 26, 2009; 6:02 pm |
|
| What I mean by "agents of delivery" is- da Vinci is the painter [the agent of delivery] of the Mona Lisa- but the Mona Lisa is the object we study. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Nov 28, 2009; 12:49 pm |
|
Actually, in my previous post to which a number of people have responded, I did not refer to God as the "original data" in distinction to the scriptures, but referred to the word of God in the mind of God as the "original data." I am not sure this is crucial to this discussion, but it makes clearer that I do not take anyone here to be saying the scriptures are God, but some may be saying the scriptures are the word of God as distinct from them being a record of some of the written down recollections of the persons to which his word has been revealed at various times and by various means such as dreams, visions, audible voice, etc.
Surely the revelatory event itself (vision, dream, audible voice, etc.) is more primary (or "original" as the term has been used here) than either the memory of it or the written record of that memory. Now had the prophets had digital video and audio recorders, that might have gotten us closer to the "original" than a written recollection did, although things like the testimony about the Robert Dziekanski tasering event make me wonder.
I do believe the scriptures are holy, reliable, precious and still a means by which God the Holy Spirit continues to speak in our day. But I do not think, for example, that the record of the Lord speaking to the boy Samuel as recorded in scripture and the verbal content of that record, are more holy, reliable or precious than the actual speaking and hearing of the voice of the Lord was at the time. Samuel's writing down of his memory of this when he was old enough to read and write, if he is even the one who wrote it, is surely not more accurate than the first telling of it, which from normal human experiences, I would say was already subject to inaccuracy or incompleteness.
I am very glad we have the scriptures. In some ways, they are my daily bread. It is extremely important that they were written and preserved. It is not without reason that documentary evidence is accepted by courts of law as more reliable than even scrupulously truthful witnesses' testimony some months or years later. It is demonstrably true that memories fade, lose detail, get mixed in with other thoughts and experiences as if they were part of the original event, etc. However, if we can get a video recording of the first re-telling of an event shortly after it occurs, this trumps the witness' or policeman's written notes of that telling. And if we can see a video of the actual event, that trumps the eyewitness testimony, the written notes of the first telling, and the video of the first telling. It is more "primary."
Now I am not sure what all this has to do with the definition of theology, but it was an interesting bunny trail for me |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Nov 28, 2009; 1:58 pm |
|
Lorne, You are making some interesting observations.
| Quote: | | I do believe the scriptures are holy, reliable, precious and still a means by which God the Holy Spirit continues to speak in our day. But I do not think, for example, that the record of the Lord speaking to the boy Samuel as recorded in scripture and the verbal content of that record, are more holy, reliable or precious than the actual speaking and hearing of the voice of the Lord was at the time. Samuel's writing down of his memory of this when he was old enough to read and write, if he is even the one who wrote it, is surely not more accurate than the first telling of it, which from normal human experiences, I would say was already subject to inaccuracy or incompleteness. |
It seems there are several levels to consider (and I’m sure that this is an oversimplification).
The reader of the text (the reader is within a cultural historical context and comes with a set of presuppositions, personality etc.).
The text itself (after textual criticism has established just what the text actually is, and the translators have done their job).
The biblical author (and final editor) who chooses which parts of the event to write about; (in the case of Samuel in the night the cat and bird are not reported [see below]).
The event – for example God ‘speaking’ to Samuel in the night. The event will have lots of detail which doesn’t get into the text (for example –a cat was in the room, a bird flew by the window). On a more serious note; there may be historical events not recorded by the biblical author which influence our understanding of a book like Romans. The Roman authorities had thrown the Jews out of Rome and at the time of Roman's writing some Christian Jews are returning to Rome. This may lie ‘behind’ the agenda in the letter itself. This may influence our understanding of the text. Is Paul writing abstract systematic theology or is he concerned that Jew/Gentile believers will function as the One People of God? What have we missed because of the post-Reformational influence upon our reading of the text?
----
It seems to me the historical theologian will want to understand the event as described in the text within the historical, cultural context and influences of its time and also understand the particular text within the overall narrative sweep of the Bible. At the same time, the historical theologian will understand that s/he comes with a set of lenses (presuppositions, historical context etc.) and that this influences his/her reading of the text. I believe this process is what the academy calls critical realism.
In my view, orthodox Christians accept the event as denoted in the text (as well as the event behind the text) believing that God has indeed spoken in both cases.. Further, we (since I include myself as an orthodox Christian) believe that the text is used by God’s Spirit in the lives of individuals and the Church today.
I think what James T may be saying is that at the end of the day, we are left with the text (after textual criticism/translation) and he emphasizes the text as the Word of God. In this thread he doesn’t seem to have spoken about the process described above; in particular the human agency involved in recording the event. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 28, 2009; 7:05 pm |
|
Hi Lorne
Regarding the distinction between the event and Scripture, as revelation, I agree with WCFOM’s when he notes that in this case- the Scriptural record is all we have. There are no tapes. Even regarding a fact we all agree on, that the resurrection of Jesus is the most important even in history- we have no other record of it than what we read in the Scriptures. This is an important and relevant fact.
While I also have a qualified agreement with you that the original event is more “primary” [ie- it really matters that Jesus actually rose from the dead] high lighting that distinction has another problem as well. Not all of God’s Biblical revelations are visions or dreams or words given to prophets- some are events, such as the life of Jesus or the story of David and Goliath. So does that make the narrative of Christ’s life a less primary than His words? Seems to me that it would. I wouldn’t want to go there. Would you?
I have talked about this before but it fits into this discussion as well. When discussing the Scriptures and the Word of God the mess created by the translation of “logos” as “word” needs to constant clarifying. The Word Of God [NT] and the Scriptures are not the same thing. Jesus is the “Word” of God. Jesus is not Scripture. The Scriptures are written words while Jesus is the “logic” of God. Most of the time when the phrase “the word of God” is used it does not refer to the Scriptures. |
|
|
|
|
|
