Context
We had a great time at L'abri in Rochester. This annual conference is a very strong fit for the kind of thing we're shooting for at Zion. We will continue to promote it year by year and see how many folks we can get to make the trip.
Of course not everything is just the way you'd want it. They have a wide variety of presenters, especially in the break-out sessions. Like a box of chocolates, sometimes you bite into one and wish you had a different piece. I was in one where a guy just kind of read his academic paper on ... (wow .. what *was* that about ...).
One other point to quibble: one of the presenters was asked about creation or the sabbath or something, and he kind of took a deep breath and started to explain that Genesis was written by Moses to Israel after the Exodus in order to teach them blah blah blah, ... the trick here being that once you assign that teaching context to Genesis, it is much easier to push your point in another direction.
Now, I have to confess that I do a lot of context-setting when I teach and preach. And I am aware that my context setting is done in order to move our interpretation and application in new directions. Recently, for example, I spent some time on the old testament battlefield context of "gospel" in order to fill out the new testament sense of "the gospel of the kingdom." So I do not argue against using context.
What I do argue against is this kind of context-by-assertion play in Genesis. Because nobody really knows when Genesis was written. There is a strong case for Moses having quite a bit to do with it, but there is no reason to believe that none of it was on hand before Moses got there. I've heard good arguments for authorship by Joseph, for example.
And if Joseph did write his part, and if Abraham recorded his part, well this whole re-reading in the supposed context of the Exodus community begins to feel pretty weak.
So let's everybody just stick to the context that the Bible actually gives us.
Of course not everything is just the way you'd want it. They have a wide variety of presenters, especially in the break-out sessions. Like a box of chocolates, sometimes you bite into one and wish you had a different piece. I was in one where a guy just kind of read his academic paper on ... (wow .. what *was* that about ...).
One other point to quibble: one of the presenters was asked about creation or the sabbath or something, and he kind of took a deep breath and started to explain that Genesis was written by Moses to Israel after the Exodus in order to teach them blah blah blah, ... the trick here being that once you assign that teaching context to Genesis, it is much easier to push your point in another direction.
Now, I have to confess that I do a lot of context-setting when I teach and preach. And I am aware that my context setting is done in order to move our interpretation and application in new directions. Recently, for example, I spent some time on the old testament battlefield context of "gospel" in order to fill out the new testament sense of "the gospel of the kingdom." So I do not argue against using context.
What I do argue against is this kind of context-by-assertion play in Genesis. Because nobody really knows when Genesis was written. There is a strong case for Moses having quite a bit to do with it, but there is no reason to believe that none of it was on hand before Moses got there. I've heard good arguments for authorship by Joseph, for example.
And if Joseph did write his part, and if Abraham recorded his part, well this whole re-reading in the supposed context of the Exodus community begins to feel pretty weak.
So let's everybody just stick to the context that the Bible actually gives us.
Labels: Bible
posted by Keith | Monday, February 16, 2009
3 Comments:
Keith, your post ended somewhat abruptly, so I'm wondering what you mean when you say, "So let's everybody just stick to the context that the Bible actually gives us." Are you talking about the biblical/canonical context (as your OT battlefield context of gospel example would suggest), or about some other context?
My curiosity also arises from the fact that I really get uncomfortable whenever anybody uses a supposed historical context to "fill out" what is happening in a biblical passage. People much smarter than me have pointed out two major problems with such an approach: (1) such "historical background" issues are often incorrect, as is shown a few years later when a different stone is unearthed, or a new document is translated; and (2) even if you could prove definitively that what you are arguing from the "historical context" is true (which would be difficult to do, given the distance of 2000+ years), you could never prove that the author was in the least concerned with that issue.
More than that, however, I just read a fascinating book where the author, in building a case against more "historical" readings of the Bible, asks (I'm paraphrasing), "What sort of questions will historical data answer? Could an inscription on a rock that proved that Jesus actually existed also prove that Jesus was the Son of God? Or, even if you had documentary evidence proving that Jesus went to the cross, could that document prove that, in doing so, Jesus took upon himself our sins?" The point was that historical facts don't help us much with our theology--even if we could prove that certain events happened (which would probably be difficult, and would certainly be disputed), the meaning of those events are the more important issues.
I think that I have similar sentiments to you, but I wanted to make sure: are you arguing that the Bible's best context is the Bible itself (i.e., and not some conjectured historical context)? If not, I'm sorry that I rambled so long about something beside your point. :)
Yeah, what you said.
The distinction between biblical context and historical context is at the heart of my complaint. Any historical stuff that doesn't come from scripture (there is overlap after all: the bible is full of true history...) is of curiosity value only. If you need it to make your point, you need to be making a different point. N.T. Wright has worrying tendencies here. He defines "gospel" in terms of historical usage in the Roman Empire, for example, rather than primarily from scripture. Rather, I wish he'd do the Bible first to establish the thing, and then say "interestingly enough, there are plenty of cases outside the biblical text where the same meaning appears ..."
I am SO GLAD to read you went to L'Abri! We were so sorry to miss it this year (even Cassie was disappointed! woot!), but plan to go next year. It does feel like a box of chocolates. ;)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home