Very intriguing and insightful, has me thinking already. Tremendous value in these insights for Christians, especially Protestants/nondenominational, as we struggle with difficult passages while not being able to "opt out" to some higher interpretive authority.
Listen to your father Bentham, he has wisdom to share!
Thanks. I guess the main point I was making might be summarized as "The Bible has the first word, not the last." There is an idea in Judaism of continuous revelation, where every later interpretive decision itself has a spark of divine revelation. (BTW, this view is rejected by most Orthodox Jews, but accepted by some, like Tamar Ross. Google for details.) This might be analogous to the Protestant idea of in sola scriptura. Both suggest that later interpretations -- including mine today -- are not merely some good idea but might also reflect divine revelation.
The risk for both is that it gives license to any wackadoodle who comes up with some nutty idea to claim not only that he's right, but that his interpretation is in some sense a divine revelation. Which is why, I think, that one must be cautious about this. In Judaism, we have a long interpretative tradition -- starting with other books in the Bible, as I have noted, but continuing through the Talmud, later interpreters, modern interpreters, denominational statement, right down to your own rabbi. (In the Conservative Movement, the Rabbinical Authority promulgates rulings, but move of these are that certain ideas or actions are permissible, and the final decision rests with the congregational rabbi.) Individuals or congregational rabbis might make decisions, but they should be (1) knowledgeable and wise, and (2) informed by this long tradition. In Catholicism, the s Magisterium make the Church the final decider of such matters, and the Pope or Council of Bishops are presumably knowledgeable, wise, and informed.
In Protestantism, I would simply urge caution. One can always interpret a particular Biblical passage for oneself. But before deciding it means something warranting a significant change, I would consult with your minister, make sure you have considered other ideas and Biblical passages, etc.
In law, we often resort to the purpose of a statute when interpreting ambiguities. I think the same should apply here. In both Judaism and Christianity, people are created in the divine image, and we can use ideas about what God has done in the Bible to guide what we should do. Judaism emphasizes lots of particular rules of behavior. Christianity relaxed those specific rules, but emphasized Christian love as an overarching guiding principle. Interpreting an ambiguous Biblical passage to require acting contrary to these ideas would, in virtually all cases, be illegitimate in my opinion. And that might be the guiding principle here.
Great article! Judging from his appreciation of Sommer and Hayes’s work, I think your father might enjoy Baden’s “The Promise to the Patriarchs”, a historical-theological reflection of the titular event very much in the spirit of his views as expressed here
Thanks. I looked at several of Baden's and just ordered his most recent on on Source Criticism. The Promise to the Patriarchs is pretty pricey, and I might just get an ebook copy or get it from a library.
Yeah I picked it up via alternative means, a habit I think most students engage in but that may not be something you’d be comfortable with. Stackert’s recent Deuteronomy book is another in a similar line that I’d also strongly recommend. Thankfully, it’s substantially cheaper than Baden’s
Mr. Adelstein—excellent article! I thoroughly enjoyed. I did not realize your son had a religious father. How do you feel about him exploring Christianity?
Great read, even as an atheist have enjoyed diving deeper into the stories of the Bible. Not surprising to see Benthams father having a close relationship with God, EA has very religious vibes.
As a Catholic this was very helpful in understanding a framework through which the evolution of Church teaching can be understood (and defended!)
Thanks!
I think a lot of what I argued is applicable to the Magisterium,
Very intriguing and insightful, has me thinking already. Tremendous value in these insights for Christians, especially Protestants/nondenominational, as we struggle with difficult passages while not being able to "opt out" to some higher interpretive authority.
Listen to your father Bentham, he has wisdom to share!
Thanks. I guess the main point I was making might be summarized as "The Bible has the first word, not the last." There is an idea in Judaism of continuous revelation, where every later interpretive decision itself has a spark of divine revelation. (BTW, this view is rejected by most Orthodox Jews, but accepted by some, like Tamar Ross. Google for details.) This might be analogous to the Protestant idea of in sola scriptura. Both suggest that later interpretations -- including mine today -- are not merely some good idea but might also reflect divine revelation.
The risk for both is that it gives license to any wackadoodle who comes up with some nutty idea to claim not only that he's right, but that his interpretation is in some sense a divine revelation. Which is why, I think, that one must be cautious about this. In Judaism, we have a long interpretative tradition -- starting with other books in the Bible, as I have noted, but continuing through the Talmud, later interpreters, modern interpreters, denominational statement, right down to your own rabbi. (In the Conservative Movement, the Rabbinical Authority promulgates rulings, but move of these are that certain ideas or actions are permissible, and the final decision rests with the congregational rabbi.) Individuals or congregational rabbis might make decisions, but they should be (1) knowledgeable and wise, and (2) informed by this long tradition. In Catholicism, the s Magisterium make the Church the final decider of such matters, and the Pope or Council of Bishops are presumably knowledgeable, wise, and informed.
In Protestantism, I would simply urge caution. One can always interpret a particular Biblical passage for oneself. But before deciding it means something warranting a significant change, I would consult with your minister, make sure you have considered other ideas and Biblical passages, etc.
In law, we often resort to the purpose of a statute when interpreting ambiguities. I think the same should apply here. In both Judaism and Christianity, people are created in the divine image, and we can use ideas about what God has done in the Bible to guide what we should do. Judaism emphasizes lots of particular rules of behavior. Christianity relaxed those specific rules, but emphasized Christian love as an overarching guiding principle. Interpreting an ambiguous Biblical passage to require acting contrary to these ideas would, in virtually all cases, be illegitimate in my opinion. And that might be the guiding principle here.
Great article! Judging from his appreciation of Sommer and Hayes’s work, I think your father might enjoy Baden’s “The Promise to the Patriarchs”, a historical-theological reflection of the titular event very much in the spirit of his views as expressed here
Thanks. I looked at several of Baden's and just ordered his most recent on on Source Criticism. The Promise to the Patriarchs is pretty pricey, and I might just get an ebook copy or get it from a library.
Yeah I picked it up via alternative means, a habit I think most students engage in but that may not be something you’d be comfortable with. Stackert’s recent Deuteronomy book is another in a similar line that I’d also strongly recommend. Thankfully, it’s substantially cheaper than Baden’s
Mr. Adelstein—excellent article! I thoroughly enjoyed. I did not realize your son had a religious father. How do you feel about him exploring Christianity?
Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
Great read, even as an atheist have enjoyed diving deeper into the stories of the Bible. Not surprising to see Benthams father having a close relationship with God, EA has very religious vibes.