Re: theology (Was Re: Did Peter walk on water?)

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 04:35:46 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: theology (Was Re: Did Peter walk on water?)"

    george murphy wrote:

    >
    > Scripture is the primary witness to God's historical
    >revelation which culminates
    > in Christ, and is the basis for the proclamation of law and
    >(preeminently) gospel.
    > Scripture consists of many different types of literature -
    >historical narrative,
    > legal codes, prayer, liturgy, fiction, saga, &c. To a considerable
    >extent the character
    > of a particular biblical text must be determined by the same types
    >of analysis used with
    > other literature. But when this analysis has been done it is
    >necessary theologically to
    > put scripture back together, to recognize that the various parts do
    >form a whole, the
    > canon, whose unity consists in the fact that it is "the primary
    >witness to God's
    > historical revelation which culminates in Christ."
    > I do not necessarily "steer away" from Tyndale or other more or less
    > conservative interpretations of scripture & in fact often find them
    >helpful. Because
    > they can remain aware of the fundamental purpose of the Bible and
    >the unity of
    > scripture, they often have insights that scholars who use
    >historical-critical methods,
    > and who may be excessively concerned with the analytic task, lack.
    >But conservative
    > scholars, if they are unwilling to give serious consideration to
    >the possibility of
    > literary genres besides historical narrative, _may_ (N.B., I do not
    >say "must") be so
    > focused on a defence of the historicity of a text that they miss
    >what the text is really
    > saying.

    I guess that I feel very comfortable until the last sentence -- then I get very
    uncomfortable.

    Being historical (I would use the word "factual" --- as in really
    happened as a event) does
    not detract from scripture in my mind. (I don't mean "just
    historical" like you don't mean
    "just a story"). I view factuality as a positive thing and a lack of
    it as somewhat
    negative. If Jesus never said some of things that are attributed to
    him, or events
    (concerning Jesus) that are cited never really happened, then I
    question the validity of the
    conclusions.

    So, if Jesus really said or did something, it carries a lot
    (infinite) of weight in my mind.
    If, however, it is a theological treatise by somebody, it is open to
    question no matter what
    the motivation of the author and how wonderful his theology might be.
    It is a non-trivial
    distinction (IMO).

    Walt

    .

    .

    happen

    >
    >
    >Shalom,
    >
    >George
    >
    > George L. Murphy
    > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    > "The Science-Theology Interface"

    --
    ===================================
    Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
    

    In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 03 2002 - 19:55:55 EDT