Marcus Borg, in his Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship, has this to say about what kind of understanding of the Bible results from taking biblical scholarship, and thus the Bible, seriously:
[T]he Bible as a whole...is the developing tradition of two ancient communities, ancient Israel and the early Christian movement. As such, the Bible is not a divine product that is to be believed no matter how incredible, but a human cultural product that is to be understood. The Old Testament is Israel's story, told by Israel and about Israel. The New Testament is the early church's story, told by them and about them. Together, they tell us how these two ancient communities experienced God, thought about God, and worshiped God, as well as how they thought they should live (communally and individually) in response to God. The Bible's ethical directives and codes of behavior were directly relevant to their lives in their time, not divine laws given by God for all time.
This transformed understanding of the Bible also leads to a quite different perception of its authority. When the Bible is seen as an infallibly true divine product, then it becomes an authority standing over us, telling us what to believe and how to behave, regardless of whether these beliefs or codes of behavior make sense to us. The alternative understanding of the Bible--as ancient Israel's and the early church's witness to their life with God--sees things differently. Within this way of seeing, the significance of the biblical canon is that it affirms that these are the ancient documents with which Christians are to be in a continuing conversation and dialogue. To take the Bible seriously is to seek to understand what our ancestors in the tradition knew of God. (p. 178)
4 comments:
Mystical,
Christians believe that we can take Biblical scholarship seriously as well as ancient culture seriously, and maintain that Scripture is both a human, and divine product, the authority for the faith, and practice of the church.
Certainly anyone who has studied Christian origins knows that Scripture did not just drop from the heavens written in the King James vernacular. :)
Anglicans also feel that Scripture should be interpreted in the light of reason, as well as the tradition of the Church, the famous three-legged stool. Has anyone read anything by the early church fathers as well as some of the contemporary scholars? Just curious.
"T]he Bible as a whole...is the developing tradition of two ancient communities, ancient Israel and the early Christian movement" (Borg)
I thought about this the other day also - which would mean that Gentiles are the focus (and likely primary writers) of the second half of those scriptures. Since Jewish people would not of have divorced themselves from their own community - unless pushed out.
"the significance of the biblical canon is that it affirms that these are the ancient documents with which Christians are to be in a continuing conversation and dialogue" (Borg)
I agree with Borg on this point - it's a continuing dialogue - making sense now of what we have and how to use the teachings. I think we are called to elaborate on the past - for our present tense.
It's funny but when I question Paul - people act as if I am questioning God. When I am just questioning their personal interpretations of Paul - plus maybe he was one view of the faith - maybe their are other just as valid ones to be had from simple interpretations of the various books and letters we have in the NT.
Either way, faith is a conversation between the teachings and experience - how this will work in our homes and present world. Once we get static about something - then we stop learning what that same thing means in fullness (on all levels). That's the problem I see with having one static view all need to adhere to - it's just not honest.
It's funny but when I question Paul - people act as if I am questioning God. When I am just questioning their personal interpretations of Paul - plus maybe he was one view of the faith - maybe their are other just as valid ones to be had from simple interpretations of the various books and letters we have in the NT.
It is funny how questioning Paul can be equated with questioning God. I attended a church service recently where the pastor made a comment about Paul being idiosyncratic and how he sometimes contradicted himself. I am sure that fundamentalists would have gone into a tizzy over remarks like that. But the reality is, quite simply, that Paul was idiosyncratic and he was a human author who expressed his understanding of theology in writing. He was part of the early Christian tradition, and he and Peter (who, unlike Paul knew the Jesus of history) didn't always get along or agree with one another. Christianity did not drop out of the sky, and neither did the Bible.
faith is a conversation between the teachings and experience
I think that is well stated. Faith is indeed a conversation. Making religion static kills its spirit. Christianity has always been a conversation, and always will be.
**It is funny how questioning Paul can be equated with questioning God. **
Or anything in the Bible, or even a particular interpretation. I can't tell you how many times I've been in a discussion with someone over a Biblical passage, and I get the response of, "Take your problem up with God."
I find little difference between that idea and the "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that's final."
Post a Comment