Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • PLANTINGA - Kinds of Scripture Scholarship

    Enviado por

    vanesinhakk
    23 visualizações19 páginas
    filosofia analiptica de Alvin Plantinga

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    filosofia analiptica de Alvin Plantinga

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    23 visualizações19 páginas

    PLANTINGA - Kinds of Scripture Scholarship

    Enviado por

    vanesinhakk
    filosofia analiptica de Alvin Plantinga

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 19
    TWO (OR MORE) KINDS OF SCRIPTURE SCHOLARSHIP ALVIN PLANTINGA, “The serious and scholnty study af the Bible Is of frst importance for the {Chistian commit. The rl cl ofthe wh have pursed this project is trauma impressive: Chayssto, Austine, Aguas, Clin, Jnathan Edwards and Kav! Brth ut for starters: Thee people and ths successors tein from the iden that Serpe i indeed divinely inspired (however ‘ely they understand this eli: they thn ty to ascertain the Lord's {enching nthe whee of Serpe or (reel) agen bt Since the lightenment, however, another Kind of Seipture holarship hos also come {nto vw, Vatiously called higher els, “istorilericam, “bia {ilcon? or historia cial scholarship” ths variety of Serpe schol- Stship bch preci from whats kaon by Tat nd aims to proceed lnafeallye, sty onthe base of reson Laka call "strc Biblical Crem” HBC for short Seripture scholarship ofthis sort also bracket the bel thatthe Bible a spetal word from the Lord swell thy othe belie accept onthe Basi ot ith ater han reason. "Now it eften happens that the declarations of those who pursue this ater hind ave in apparent conic wi the main fines of Chistian thought one thn pursues ths of scholarship te ually to conduc, for example, that esus was relly the pre-existent second person ofthe divine trinity who tos ered, died, an then tral rose fom te dead he tid day. AS ‘Van Trvey says “So far a the bbls hitorian i concerned, there i ‘eatcely» popularly held trains bell about Jesus that not regarded vith considerable septclsm.” Ts ty to desrbe both of these kinds of ‘rripurescholorshipThen fal ask the following question: ow should traditional Christan, one ho accepts “the great things ofthe gospel" re Spond to the deflatoary aspects of HC? How should she think abot ts ‘pene ny nv af Nate Da, Note Dame IN 4S, OSA 2 Alin Plantings Pharell corrosive results with respect to tational Chistian belie? 1 all argue tat she need nt be disturbed by the cont ence a are that thw alleged result upon epateetagea ee ees {he fet ot share oF anything be ake acept gn eb ne ching 1, Sergure Disnty niet aril of wort srvics every wk Cris ovr the world et passges of Scripture and respond by saying, “THis the We arecSnpPose we Begin heraore, by inulin nto the epee {he bel that the Bb iviney ingpired in a pecal way cet eg Huy ge conse divin dicourne How dns a Caton ome ace {hat he gospel of Mack othe book of Acs, othe ent Nes tenet, futhortatve becouse divinely inspired? What Gienyhing) isthe er ot it rant Thera several poli, For many tl ety Bibles inded the Word of God Gust ae om bought eke ae ands perished inthe American Civil War), and Phnes see ae ee ‘ny reason t doubt his But an importa feature St career ae cepts tle Bust on testimony, then Basaran fore aa {aan for the ester a wel the warrants ble has ee Too for More) Kinds of Spt Schlarhip 245, 50. Chistian might comet think something like the above she believes (0) atthe sposties vere commissioned by God trough Jesus Ces oe witnesses and deputies, (2) that they produced a body of apostolic tachi ‘what Jesus tog, ond (that the New Testament books are all ether apostolic wings oF formulations of apostolic teaching composed by clon asoiates of ore oF nother apostle She ao bev (4) that the process whereby these books fund thee way into single ‘anon ia mater of God's authoring thee books a onaiting single ‘volume of divine disease, She therefore concludes that indeed (the New Testament isa singe volume of divine discourse. But ofcourse our question then would be:hovr does she know why dows she believe ach of ()-()? What the source of thee beets? Could it be, perhaps by way a rdinary Nistor investigation? T doubt St The problem isthe Principle of Dwindling Probables, Suppose « Che. ‘on proposes to give a storcl argument fr the divine tepraton ted “onstguent authority ofthe New Testament and suppose we tink of het a steady knowing or believing the entra tut of Chistian She alco ‘ows that theres sucha petson o Go, that the man fers slo the dvi ‘on of God, tht through his ministry passion, det and resurrection we sinners cam have if. These constitate prt of her beckground information, and canbe employed in the historia ergument in question. Her boy of background information i with respect to which she estimates the pb bility of) includes the main ies of Christin teaching. Ando course ‘she knows that the books ofthe New Testament-—some of them, anyway ‘pparenly teach or presuppose these tings: With resp! to therlog, Pethaps each of (1) could be considered st least ule plows and Perhaps even ely tobe tue Sill each only probable Perhaps, ined, each sey kly an has & probably as high a5 9 with rept io tat body of bell Ths Been so ‘a concldeonly thatthe pray of Ue conjnction, on 8 frsomeat ‘more thn 5. In that ease Pi atte New Testament ithe Wor of oa ‘ould note appropriate what would be appropriate the ble tht faely el that the New Testaments the Woof Ga (The probably ha thenext throw of this de willnot come up either {or 2is rete than tht ‘is nowhere nes slficent for myelin that ll ot come up 1 2) Ofcourse, we euld quibble about these prabsbliis—no doubt they could ‘sensibly be thought toe greater than [stig No dou bt they oul lo sensibly be thought to be les than Tsugested. The isos argument foe()40 (wilt bes ye prbubiies, onl abet only fay tana Which incomportes 2S Alvin Plating probity of (9 tsl. The estimate ofthe prbebilitesineolved further: ‘nore, wll be vague, variable and not telly ell founded. Tf the beet questions to have tron for Christians, epistemic tts oe them be something iferent from that ofa conclusion of ordinary histori esiation, [Now ofcourse, most Chistian communis have taught that the warant _sjoyed by this el snot conferted on it jst by way of einay historia investigation. The Belge Conesion, one of the tos important conten ofthe Reformed churches, gives alist (the Protestant I) of the canon books ofthe Bible (Arle 8) then goss ow And we believe without a doubt all hinge contained in them—not 30 much because the church receves them and approves thems nach, bat shovel because he aly Spr testifies in cur hurts ha they are oo Gand also because they prove themselves tobe rom God ‘Thece is «posible ambiguity here; “we betleve al things contained in them ot so much becuse the church reeves the, bu «ut to what does thi lat ‘then eefer? The teachings contained in the bos, othe books ‘enselves? I the former, then what we have heres theca thatthe ly Spits eaing us tose, not hat a given ook from Ged bu ha some ltnhing—eg., that God in Cust was recon the wold to ime is ined tue: the ates, however, whet we woud beled to bebe is ch Propositions as The gospel ofan from Gin tis tet ly case ‘hat the later i what the Conteasion Intends. According tote Canesten, then thee are two sources forthe belie that eg) the gel Jl fom Go The fist i thatthe Holy Spit tess in out hears that hs book Inded fom God the Holy Spirit des nt merely impel ust believe, with "espectfoa given teaching ofthe gospel of Joh, that itis rm God, bt impels us to believe that the gospel o John ise fromm Go The econ that the book “proves ise tobe fom God. Perhaps ere the iden oat the believer ist comes to think, with expect to many ofthe specif eschings ofthat boo, thatthe are indeed from Gov tha the Holy Spin cating her to believe hs with respect to many of the enching ofthe Souk She tae lnfecs (withthe hep of ether premises) tha the whole book ha ht sae ‘This & only one way in which this ble could have warrant thee are ‘other pestis, Perhaps the believer knows by way ofthe ira i tation ofthe Hal Spit thatthe Holy Spt hae guided and preserved the Chistian cur aking ure tha ts enchings om important ates et fact ue: then the bliver would be warranted in believing at ty rte of ‘hose books of the Bible endorsed by ll or nay all traditional Chan communities, that they are from God. Or perhaps, guided by the Hoy Spi she recapitlates the proces whereby the canon ws originall formed py. ng atlenion tothe orignal eter of apostle authors, coaiteny with ‘To (or Moe) Kind of erie Schlarshp 247 ‘apostolic teaching, andthe like, and relying on testimony for the propos ‘ons such and such books were indeed composed by apostles There are slko combinations of thee ways: However precieely this Sle receives ts ‘waren then, taitoal Cuatinshave accepted the bei tht Ue ble Indeed the Word of Go and that in the Lor intends to teach us tats” 1, Traditional Cision Bic! Commentary Ot cours, its no always easy to tell what the Lon teaching usin gen Dashage: what he etches indeed tue, but sometime i wna lest fat ‘shat his teaching is Par ofthe problemi the fact hat the Be contin ‘atria of so many different sot notin this expect kee contr ‘ray book on thelogy a pilosphy Its nota book fll of desiree Sentences, with proper analysis nd logic devopment ell the Accoutrements academies have come'o know antlove ae demand, The Bie ‘does ined contain sober assertion: bt there alto exrttlon: expan ‘of prise, poor, the tling of stoves ane! parables, songs, devotes! me terol history genealogies nmentations, confession, prophecy, apocalyptic ‘atrial, and much cle Besides Some ofthese (apoealps:ft ear) present real problms of iterprettion (fr us at presen) what exactly ie "he Lord teaching in Dail of Revelation? That ot easy to 9) ‘And even if we stick to staighforward assertion, there are a thousand gestions of interpretation. Here are it couple of examples In Mather 5317-2, Jesus decares that ota jotora ite the av hall par era and thot“. umes your righteousness surpasses that ofthe Phases a te {teaches of the a, you wl certainly not ener the Kingdom of heaven ut ‘nGalatian Put sooms to say that observance ofthe Ln does ot coun fot ‘ny how can we put these together? How do we understand Colon 1126 “Now I rejoice in what was sullered for you, a Til up In my Bes ‘what sil lacking in regard to Chest’ alfietons, forthe sake of his by wich isthe church? Is Paul suggesting that Chia’ eric lice, Insficen, that it requires additonal stferng on the part of Paul aot the rest of ws? That seams unkely eit hat our suffering can be ay of ‘Christ's thus standing to the ater nthe relition in which a type starts the reality it ype? Or shall we understand it ke ths we st ding lsh between two kinds of Cri’ sullen, the redemptive suring, ee ‘explatory and vicarious atonement to which nothing cate ded or taken ‘way, onthe ane hand and another Kind, esa “forthe ske of his body, ‘in which we human beings can genuinely partcpate? Perhaps its sulle. lng whic can build up ec the body of Christ even ase Pesponse to {Chis can be deepened by our mediating on Chit’ saci for us and the amazing walfss love displayed ini Or what? Do Paul ane James ‘ont etch other on the relation between faith and works? Or father, Since God isthe author of Serpture she proposing an inconsistent ot 248 Alvi Plating selicontradictory teaching for ur ble? Weil no, surly nt but hen how shall we understand the two in elation teach other? Mase pone gieee {8st God the prince stor of Scripture, how sal we in aoe te ‘parent terse the ter ply? ‘Sexiptare therefore isindedinpied: what it teaches is indeed tre; bt Itksnotalwny via fo el what do tach, Indeed, ary ofthe sermons nd hone preached ina milla churches ceery Sundey mommy ee oe ‘ote in part fo bringing at what might other be ebscure neta teaching Given tha the Bibles a communication fem God lo humaind, divine revelation, there is much about It hat requies dep and percptoe ‘secon mh ht sore arya apt sare case, hs fac wast ot on for example, Cheer, Augustine, Anse, Calg, ara the thers | mentioned ere o Between te they ect apes sve number of volumes deve fo powerful reeton onthe meaning an techs of Spr (Calis comments alone rant some ey ‘wo vaes) The ai was tory to determine a aceurtely pose ‘wha the Lord propose each inthe Bk Call ts coterie ee onal biblical commentary’ and ote tat elgplays a feast te folowing the fetes Fiat Serie itself taken tobe a wholly authoritative and tastwothy gue to al it's authoritative and runtworty, beene tea evelation from God, a matte of Co's speaking toss Once lt soca therefore, what the teaching oven bit of cpr the question of he truth an aceptaity of tat teaching is sete In commentary on Pate we might decide that what Plato realy meant to say wes XYZ, we igh then go om to consider and evaluate XYZ in various way song whee Ss reo lose othe rth or in rip, or supersede things we ‘ave lend since lato wrote and the ike weight sles wheter Hos {rounds or arguments for XYZ are sig, or seepable or subtantia ot ‘Compelling. These questions are ot of place inthe Hind of Serpe seo rahi under consideration. Once conned that Go proposing 17 fo ‘ur ai, we do nt go onto ak whether iis tue oF whet Ca hes made ago case fort Go ot equred to makes case, ‘Secondly, an assumption ofthe enters otha the pina author of the Bible etre Ble God hinset Of couse, each of he bon of the Bible has ahuman author or authors at wel butte peinpal suber God. This imps us to wet the whole more ikea unifedcommarieton than a miscelony of ancien books. Srptre Isnt so much Hery of Independent books anise a book with many subdivisons bat eel theme: the message ofthe gospel By vie ofthis ny, farther soe ofthe fact that there i ste pina author spon “interpre Serpe with Sxptre Ita piven passe fom one of P's pines is pualng its perf prope ory Webs to clny oo ot Cots teaching inthis passage by appaliog met only to what Pl hse “Two for More) Kinds of Scripture Scholarship 249 ‘ays caewherein other epsties (his own o others) but alot whats taught ‘daewheren Serpture (for example, the gospel of jl), Passages in Pains ‘or nih can be interpreted in terms ofthe fle, more exp disown the New Testament the serpent elevate ona poe to eave the laces fom aster an be seen a8 type of Chit and ds as geting some of ig rifcance by way ofan mpi erence to Chi, whose bing alse on ‘ros averted a greater disaster forthe hole human sac). A further conse ‘quence: we can guile propery acept propositions thal ee inferred fom Premises coming rom eifeent pal of the Bible once we soe what Cod Intends to teach na given passge Asn what einen each ine een passage B, we can put the two together, and tet a consequence of these Propositions a et divine teaching” “Thiry (and connected with the Second point, the fact that the pine author ofthe Bible Ged himself means hat nt cannot always determine the meaning ofa given passage by discovering what the human author had In mind: OF cours, various pastmedemn hermeneutics in to amuse by telling us that in this aso all other, the author Intentions have nothing whatever odo with the meaning of passage, tha he render ers seifconers upon it whatever meaning the paseage has, ox pehape tha even énertaning the ides of txt having meaning if fl info “herent innocence" innocence, edly enough, whic sy ise i ineradcaly sled by its inevitable association wit opprenive, race sex, Boman {nd otber offensive modes of thought. Ths indeed amusing, Reusing © “Serious busines, homer, ti obvious (given thatthe psp autho of the Bibles Goa tha the meaning of bill passage wll be given by whet ittethat the Lord intends to teachin hat pea, and tis prety tl tat boblical commentary testo discern. Therefore, what the Lord intends teach usisnot ential with what the human author Radi nd the ter ‘may not so much as have thought of what infact the teaching of te Passage inquetion. Thu, for example, Chistian tke the suring evant passes in aah fo be elerences Jens Je hime ny Lake 416-21), thatthe prophecy in lish 61:12 ffullled nim; John (1998) take psssges ftom Exodus, Numbers, Plas and Zachariah tobe reference © Jess nthe events of hs Ife and death Matthew ane Jn tke that Zechariah 99 te a reference to Jens tumpal entry into Jrwsalem (Matthew 213 and John 12:15), Hebrews 10 takes paeages fom Pun, Jeremiah, and Habaliuk to be references to Chit ae events nhs care, {8 does Paul for passages rom Pas and Iain is spose in Aets 1, Indeed, Paul refers to the Old Testament nearly every pope of Rome su both Corinthian epi, and frequently inher epsties Thee Is ho fenson to suppoce the human authors of Exodus, Numbers, Psalms, si, Jeremiah, oe Fabskkok hed in mind Jess trumphal entry, or hs cara Yio, or other evens of Jesus le and death, or indeed anything la ex ‘lc abou Jesus. But the fact that Go whois he prin) author 250. Alvin Plantings here makes it quite posible that what we ae to learn frm the text in ‘question is something rater diferent from what the human author Proposed to teach 1, Historie Bea Crt Fora least the last couple of need years there has also een a quite slferent kind of Scxipture scholarship varoualy called “higher ert”, historical rts," eco teal critea schelorahips will historical bilal eis” (HDC), Cleey, ee are Indeed 6 HDC; i as enabled ws fo learn a great deal aboot the Bible we otherwise night not have known. Furthermore, some ofthe methods thas developed ‘ae anu have been employed to excell elle invasions shies of ter- ‘stand importance, including Uedona Biblical commentary lies i portanty fom the ater, however HBC Is fundamentaly an elighenment Dot tt an effort to ty to determine fom the standpoint of eon lone what the Scriptural teachings are and whether they are tue. Ths HBC eschews the authority and guidance of tradition mage credo ah Kind ofecesial or "exera” epistemic uthority The es ios what oh be established (or atleast mae plausible) using only the light of what we ‘ould call “patra, empl reston” (5, ofcourse, not everyone who es the methods of textual ess commonly employed in HBC involved in the projet of HBC as Lam thinking of take parti that projet one mst smo scover the tt about Srpture and it teachings om the stan pin of reason alone) The faculties or sources of ble invoked, therefore, ‘would be those that ate employed in ordinary story: perception, te ‘mony, reason taken nthe sense of pri inti together with ductive fd probabilisic reasoning, Reid's sympathy, by which we discern the thoughts and felings of enaer and soon bi bracken any propstion tne knows by ttn or by way ofthe authority ofthe church spinors (1632. 1677) sea lays down the charter for ti enterprise "The ule for [Bi cal interpretation shoud be nething but the naturel Hight of eason which 's common to all—not any supematural light nor any external euthory. This project or enterprises offen thought of a pat and parcel of the development of moder empirical science and inde practitioners of HEC ‘ten drape about ther shoulders the mane of moder science. The atoc- ‘ion sot just that HBC can perhaps shaven the prestige of modern scene, but aso that ican share im the abeous epistemic power and excellence ‘of theater Its common to think of scence el tous bet sh at gee ting te know oehat the world is realy Hike HBC i among other thing, an atlempt to apply these widely approved methods to the study of ‘Scripture and the aig of Christianity. Thus Raymond Brown a Serplte scholar than whom none i more highly respected, believes that HBC 6 “cent iil els" yields actual ele fp 3} inten his “Teo (or More) Kinde of Srp Scolarhip 251 ‘own contbutions to be “scientifially respectable” (p. 11}: and pct toners of HBC investigate the Scriptures with “scientific exactitude” (op 16-1" at wat sexy, wo study the Bible sential? As we wil xe ‘cow theres more han one answer otis question. One theme tha ems ‘command nary universal sent, however, that in workings ths “nie pojet (however exaly It st be undrstond you donot invoke oF “Employ any helo ssumptions or presupposition You dona sume, foresarpl that he Bes epired by Cod in any special ayo conta ‘nything ke specially divine dacouae You donot assume that es thvn Sof Gale hat rz rom he ede ht eng Sn death sin some ways propistory stonement for human sin making iT ponte for sto ge one meine gh raoahp 0 Gand, Yu de not asume ar of hee things Because in pursing science one does nt sume or employ ary proposition whi one knows by ath (ha onsequence the meaning of tat wl be what he human author inne {onsen (isan aserve Lind of tex) divine intentions and ean do ‘otenter ino the meaning") Thus the iden, saysE-P-Sandes, sto rely ely fon evidence on which everyne can spec” According to fo Levenson, ‘Histor ees ths igh init hat the buna Before which inter Pretaton ar argu cat be coneional or gmat the arguments ‘ered must be hstorically vali able, that to compel the sent of Ito whatever their tglon or lak theca, whatever thelr ack ‘rounds spiel experiences, or personal ell, and without peeping Sry dam of revelation arabs Lindary explana that “Thereaein fact wo reason why many scholars are very cautious about Tal stron The second reason i stra, The religous Meare {Fthe ancient world fll of miracle stores, and we cannot believe them all Its nt pen to a scholar to decide that, at because he 3 Daleving Chistian he wil acept all the Gospel races at thelr face ‘a,b at he same time he el repiite miracles atte to I. [ilsuch accounts have fo be sruliized with equal elachenent™ [And even Like Timothy Johnson, whois in oneal stately rt of HBC: tis obviously important o sty Christan origins historically. And in sch historical inguy, sith commitments shoul pay 0 role. Chast Sty is no more privileged forthe historian than any other human phenomenon” In pct ths emphasis means that HIDC tens to desl espeilly with questions of competion an cut, these being the question est aly ‘Mires by the methods employed. When was the document question 252 Alin Plantings omposed—or more exactly, since we cannot asume that we are dealing ‘nth ingle unified document here, when were varios pars composed How wes the pope of Lik or example compose? Was writen by one pon ig ns meray of ous sl wor ed dso at kein thera twadtion? West dependent on one or more carer men ot ‘tl sources Why dd ther of edactr pu he bok together js he way he dwn to make a theclogil point in current contversy? ‘Where rations Bil commentary assumes that the entre Bile ely «ne iook witha single prinelpl author, HBC tendo give us clon of teoks by many author Ant ven want cons oe ba aay give usa collection of continous sayings and eases pericops), these having been the together by ene or mere recor ow macho what reported asthe saying and dscoure of Jus real was ad by Jesus? Can we dicen varios stats inthe ool--perhape selon seatury Inca the actual sayings flesh and then cures overlying. stata? As Robert Alter sy, achlarchip of this hind tends to be “excavate the idea isto cig behind the documenta we actualy heveltosee what can bedetrmined of it story” ‘Ofcourse the de slo se fr this ips whather the event reported in he gorpl, for exampe—rely happened and whether Te Pctre they giv of esi fr stoic acurae Did eso the ings they Sy he a and do the things hey 9 be id ve the ssumplon tha ve cannot imply ake at face vale the gospels awe how have them ‘Tete may have bee all srs of atone a subractons ad alterations made inthe interest of advancing ecogcl pests Farther ne New Tet ‘ment books are writen from the standpoint tht hat fsus lly ‘a8 the Chris dd indeed strand ean se rom the dead, and di Secomplish out salvation. From the standpoint of reason she, however, this ath mut be bracketed ence (rom tat standin the hermeneutics of suspicions appropriate here (This spin ls sometimes cried 0 far that reminds one ofthe way in which te CIA‘ dental Wat M8 ¢ py is taken s powerfal evidence a Mt X is indeed 29) A. Varieties of HBC ‘Those who practice HBC, therefore, propose to proceed without employing theological assumptions or anything one Knows by fat Gf indeed here ‘anything one knows by fal) thee things ae to be Bracke Intend, one proceeds scent, on the baie of season sone, Beyond ts owevet, tere i vastly Tess concord What i to count ay reason? recoly what premises can be employed in an argument rat resson ane? What exaciy foes itmean to proceed sinc? j “uo fr More) Kinds of Spur Seolrhip 253, 1, Troltchisn HBC Hire many’ contemporary biblical crite wil appeal to the thought and ‘eaching of Ens Teelsch Thus John Coli ‘Among theclogins these prncpes esived thei asic formulation irom Ene Tretchin 188 rete stout hee pines @) “Tae prnipleo ecm ormathntlogil doce snc ny ceria isso revision Norcal ingly in never aii shes coanty ‘utony eave epee pebble pipe of ancy Ne torial Knowledge pale bce l eve are sma n pencil. ‘Wesnua sone tha the law of ature nial mes were he se ‘snow, Tel feed oh ste almighty poe fsnalogy ‘The prinpef corto the phenomena of Rtn re nerd td ntcrdependot ann eet canbe ae om the sue ora ear and eect” Collins adda fouth principle, thi one akan frm Van Harvey's The Hi teria the Rleer a mote recent es classics forthe proper method of Iistorcl ei To those should be added the priniple of autonomy, which i nds ens for any erties study. Neither church nor tat can presrib for {he scholar which conclusion ahould be teach” Non the thing to ot that each of hse principe mil biguous. tn particu, each (except pechap fr the secon) has hon controversi indeed, platudnaus interpretation. The ist principle ees totem comment on historia ingiry rater hens prncpe for pace Norcal ingiy cn ever ats beaiey cata eal, rhap te pled methodloia print hatin doing store es, you shod fi ining Aerator ou at Far ecu nape realy everyone would agree tat few historical ests of any signfsnce reas crn an sy, hal +1 =, bf, hey dont achieve able er tn: ihe ony reasonbly publ condi for rl event that tre abltelyceriin, I suppose, would be sich Historical ae that ‘Sher Casa cosa the Rebicon or ee he i ot) The third also asa plttudinou interpretation. What Troesch sys, Thole int har in tpestcaly Seer pet top oy ‘ovement proce stat a nexus of things by rfrnce othe we fe ‘Stan relaioes Ths cn be soa tes plana very vent Isto Be explained by reference to the web of i casa relations snhich of oor mou lo ine the intone and acon of pero Wal then, consider even such an event a the resurrection of es from the dead: scoring to the prinple st hand this event foo would have tobe ‘plained ry rel: wb of ical ata No rele on trtonal ew, di event was caused by Gad Nil, who caused in 254 Abin Pantinge ero chee certain of him an ends in pacar making possible {oc haan beings tobe recncied with Cod Sake, ts pine woe crcl very Tsay the second principle perhaps the exception othe am hat each ‘as banal uncontoveral interpretation thats bere on any pone interpretation the second pinple seems foetal the existence tao Ta thresh gs tral sate of Pha 8 ‘century scence and phiterophyof scence what sence acorns ty ‘hough st thee avs natare™ Empat have always been sobens about natura laws however and at rest te cm ta ere se ay ach things at best exemely ottovesal™ Ss allt one of Toes principles have plitedinous interpretations tut these are notin fat the nerpretaton given to them in the eens of HBC. Within that community howe pre ave understood i uch vay aso preside diet dene con nthe wor Nol alin hee Iman ac Trl’ princi n tr nonpsiadineusinapreo rather hoe who think of tees sep for tecting os Ps les think of themseves a cept o reg hi nates ‘ers (Presumably eso sept tha ken plattatiniy Soto these principles imply that Ga ha ot in cecal pte oy hang uthotsin sth a way that what hey res elaine speech adden {0 us or has erie fess om the ded fumed water in win ot formed mire fay ter sorts “Thus Rudolph Butane ‘The historia method includes the presupposition that history unity in the sense of closed continuum of ete in which individual events are connected by the sucesion of cnuse ade. ‘This continuum, furthermore, ‘cannot erent by the interference of supeenatarl ranscendent powers” Many other theologians, oly enough, chime in with agreement: God ‘annoto fay rate would not and wll not at dey in the weld Ths Jofn Macquarae a The way of understanding miracles that peal to breaks inthe natal ‘cde and to supernatural intervention belongs othe mythological ot ook nd cannot commend ital ina pont mythologies cima of thought ‘The ediional conception of races recncale with but ms «m understanding of bah scence and hetory, Selene proceeds on the ‘sssumprion that whatever evens occur in he wor canbe accounted foe in terms of her events that also belong within the world and fon Some occasions we are unable o give a complete acount of sme hap. ening the ecient conviction ttt farther research wl ring fo Tw or More Kind of Scripture Schersip 255 light Further factors inthe situation, bt factors that wil un ot tobe jist immanent and this ody a5 thowe already Known." And Langdon Gilkey: contemporary theology does not expect, nor does it spe of, ‘wondrous vin events the src of ar an Nato ie The ata nex in space and tne which the Enlightenment science and Plosphy inttouced nt the Wester indi ln asumed by froern theologians and schol since they paricpae i he modern ‘world of scene bot itlletaly and extent, they can sacly {do anything ee. Now this assumption o «easel order among pheno ‘mena ever an therefor of te suthorty ofthe acetic nese tion of observable events, makes reat diference to the validity one ‘ssslan to bial naretves and sot the way one snderstands their meaning, Silden a vat panoply of vine docs anevets recoded i ‘ripe ae no lnger ep shaving actually happened What rer the Hebrews Doboved bev that he bbl pope ved the ‘Sine cus cantina ef pace and ie in whch welive and net ‘whch no divine wonders taped and no divine voces were ear.” Sacro rtm Stee tre onetime atmo armen oS ededeie treater cares cere ete vn amuse eames al seaviasiin alarm SERS ameter icecncutaeiemnede cae ele ‘Scatter once atariecegie aie soietinan amen e Crh te eee sie Se city et agenda tert es sete ee calor eae pou 2, Duhemian HBC [Not all who accept and practice HBC accept Trelsh’s pringpls, and we ‘an see another variety of HBC by thinking bout an important suggestion ‘made by Pere Duber, Dubern was both serious Catholcand sro ‘lent he was accused (ashe though By Abel Rey of allowing hires 256. Alin Patnge are methyl views ta Chetan to enter ips nan improper way. DDahem repudiate tis suggestion claiming that hs Chtay idnat cle AS se nay ayaa and ore dnote in an improper wa." Farthemar the eet ot pier way to paras phys shay esi wan te way wih ea nfo done pyse hy sould be completly independent of religious er metaphases eminent? = mse ‘Wy he think 5? What eid he have pins metaphysics? Hee he ste a career Enlightenment ret iu tink ef etaptysce ce nrg in a e yy hn Your inate he wrth oo ‘al theory wil depend upon the mets you adopt Ti th wit dependent upon metaphysis uch yt toner wh doce ‘otacep the metophy sis ivolved ins ven physical ary cash sy the physical theory ether And the prem wt a oa the dng res atu ints nga wath er lot bean acy we onal works together eps of our mete pigs vw ™ "Now to make physical theories depend on metaphysics is surely na the ‘way to let them enjoy the pevllege of universal consent If Uheore ical physics is subordinated to metaphysis, the divisions scpurating the verse metaphysical ystems wil extend int the domain of pie. ‘physical theory reputed toe satetactory by the sectarian of one metaphysical soo wil be rected by the prsane of noir ule’ main pnt hink shat phys hors employs metapy ical sumption or other notions tht ae not accepted by other workers the fl and employs them in such away that those who donor seep them ‘cannot acep his physical theory, den otha extent his work canst be te ‘cepted by those others; to that extent. frtermore, the cooperation impor Sk to scence wl be compromised. He therfore proposes conception of ses psn prancing ih he nes inp ‘tof metaphysis: Thave denied metaphyseal doctrines the ght ote fr or against ‘any physical theory. Whatever Ihave said of the method by which [hysis proceeds, o the natre and scope that we must atu the theories it constructs, dows notin any way prjudice ether the meta physica dctins or religious belts of anyone who sept my word, ‘Th: believer and the nonbeliever may both work in corona or {he progres of physi lence such ae have teed fo define > Duiem’s proposal, reduced to essentials, that physicists should not ‘make essential use of ligous or metaphysical sumptions in doing tht ‘Teo fr Move) Kinds of Scripture Scholarship 257, physics: that way Hes chaos and cacophony, a6 each ofthe warring fects does thing its own way. If we want to have the sort of commonality hd genine dnlogue tat promotes progress a piss, we should avoid a Sumplons-metphsial selipious or thervise—that ae not accepted by lI parties to the dlcusion™ Duloms suggestion i interesting and important and (although Duhem Ihimsel didnot do 0) can cbviouly be applied far beyond the confines of history: fr example, to Seriptare scholarship. Suppose we say that Demian Seipeure scholarship is Seiptureschlarhip that dows ot in volve ary theological, religious or metaphysical assumptions that are not {cepted by everyone in the relevant community.” Thus the Duhemian ‘Sarprure scholar would not tke fr granted ether that Cos the pencil fthor of the Bible or thatthe main tines ofthe Chetan story ate in fact. trun thes are nt acepted by al who are party tothe dscsson She wold not tae for granted that Jen one rom the dead, or haan ther irae has occurred; she could nt so much a ak It for ranted that mires ae Posribe since these csi are rete by many eho re party tothe di {Eusslon On the oer hand, of course, Duhenian Sasplare schalarhip ‘anno! lke I for granted that Chit did wo ise fom the dad or that no ‘miles have ceured ofthat miracle ar porate Nor, feos, could Iemploy Teale’ principles (aken norplautudinousl) not everyone cepts thom. Duhorlan Scripture scholarship fits wel with Sander” sug- fstion that “whats needed i more secure evidence evidence on Which Everyone can apre” above. 251 I alo fis well with Jon Me's fantasy ‘fan unpopol canave” of eich Cathole, Proktant and agro chalar, locked in the Basement of the Harvard Divinity Schoo! Ivar und they teane to consnais an what Netorca methods cn show about fe Ke and ‘mission of Jesus Among the proposed beneis of Duheman HBC, obv- ‘us, ae just the Benefits Duhem its: people of very diferent religious nd theologies can cooperate inthis enter. Parthermee although in principle the aditonal lial commentator and the Trocachian ib lal scolar could dacover whatever unearthed by Duheman means tis Sn fac likely that mach sil be lames inthis cooperative enterprise that ‘ould not be learned by either group working sone 5. Spinosistie HBC ‘roclschian and Dubemian HBC donot exhaust HBC; one canbe a peact- toner of HC an accept neler. You might propos o flow reas alone [in Soptae scholar, but think thatthe Tosfachian peeps taken the song version In which they imply that God never at specially in the ‘word are notin fac deliverance ofrenscn, Renn lone, you sy, ety fannot demonstrate that Ged never acts specially in the wor oe that no Imiacles have ever occured Is, you wd no bea Troelschian. On the ftherhand, you might aso reject Duheiansm a well or you might ink 258° Alin Ponting that 06 matter of fact, here ae dliverances of teaon not accepted by everyone pty tothe projet ofSrpture scholarship (The deliverances of ‘reason ae inde pen oa bat impeding factors of oe kind or acter ean Sormtimes prevent someone rom eng the ath fone or another of erm) Dut then you might yourself employ those delivesances of reason inputs, lng Scripture scholrhip thereby employing assumptions not ace by _everyone involved inthe project and thera rejecting Daemianin, You ‘might therefore propose to fallow reson aloe, bu be reither a Trelchan ‘ora Duinemian Suppose we use the erm Spinozisic HBC fo denote hs ‘atiety of HBC. The Spineret concurs with he Treltscian and Duean ‘hat no theological assumptions or belts ate to be employed in HBC She ers from the Toaischian in paying the sine compliment to Troesc’s Principles they to ae not delverances of reason ad Hence sr no to be ‘employed in HC. Ad she lifer from the Duberian in holding hat thee are some deliverance of reason not exept by al wha ae party To the pro ect Scpture scholarship hence, she prope to employ sone propane ‘ot bles rejected bythe Duhemian. oan ‘A tinal point Isnt ofcourse accurate to suppose thal who practice HOC fal tel ino one o another ofthese categories. There ee all sot of haoray houses, ts of hangs between two options, any who al paely lato one and party into another, and many who have never ce see hat there are these categories. A real ve Sept scholar nay be ely have pent» great del of thought onthe epistemological foundations of fis or her disspine and is ely t sade tw or moe ofthe eatgores | 3B. Tensions with Traditional Christianity ‘There hasbeen ahistry of substantial tension between HBC and aitonal Cristian. Thus David Fedsich Strouse" in 835 “Nay, if we mould be ‘andi with ourselves, that which was nee sated history forthe Christin leliever forthe enlightened portion of ou entemporsis only fable Of ‘ours the unenlightened faithal were not so unenlightened that they fated tortie ths feature of ileal crcem. Writing ten yeas ater the be eatin of Staus's book, William Pringle complains tat “in Germany, Bla cricism is almest a national pursuit. Unhappily, fie ie] were but to fequertly employed in maitsning the most dangerous ero In ‘posing every inspired statement which the mind of man unable fall 0 ‘comprehend, in divesting religion of is spinal and heaven charac, nd in undermine the whole fabri of revealed truth Perhaps among Pringk’s complaints were the following, Fist, practi ioners oF HBC tend to tet the Bible esl of separate books rather an 8 uni communication trom God Ths, they tend fo reject the Kes that ‘Od Testament passages can be propery understood st mahing reference 0 Jesus Crit oro events in Ns if: "Creal seolas recut clairvoyance ‘Too fr Moe Kind of Serpe Scolship 259 as an exlaaton axiomatic stead of holding that the Old Testament gin tne le Nw eat ny thatesch Cope writer sought fo oxpat Od Testament pescape ode 0 ‘wer his ce for he tase snd dominic Gains offs or of church on ir bball More general, Brevard Chil “Por many deeds the usual way of iiitng enering detain th Be war Soy fo mantle the churstradonal eschings epaing eripture by appiing theacids of eam" ‘Second, lowing Est Trocach HBC tends to coun miracle, tokng tas alomate tht mice do not and int rely happen {ny rte claiming tat the proper method fo HDC eannot adit miracles her sb evidence or conciions,Pethaps Jesus eel cer 0 some Paychowmatiedsorders, bt nothing that modem medial cence cannot aps Many employing thie meth propose at aut never tog of Himself a vine! oro the Messiah r capable of forgiving set one a hing di and then sn ren Ue ead. The Ht Jus fesurcher"saytke Timothy Jonson int hat heels be {sun in the face of hile before is death Te resuecton i when ensidere ata con noms of visonay expiance rs cntton ‘ofan empowerment tht bgan before ens dent Whether nade expt ‘eos the operative premise what wen rel Jeu fer hs death” ietnson p18) “Those who flow thee methods sometimes produce quite remarkable accqunts“and acount remarkably diferent frm tedonal Caan Understanding. According to Barbra Therng ou nd The ise fe Dead Ser Sra for example, Jens was bred ina cverhe di ot acally ‘Scand wan evived by the magisn Sion Mags wheseupon he aed ‘Mary Magen, st! dove, ateed thee cre, was vnc and fall den Rome. According to Morton Si, Jess was a practicing fomasveal and conurer = Actoding to Caran Septre schol Ga Lise the vars “an enpy Srl Ua ua beset by snyoneholdingascenie worldview?" G. A Well goes so far atoll thatour mame} at na up nthe Bie, empty Be Santa Ch itdes not ace ack to oF denote anyone a John Allegro sppsrenty thnks there es ne sach person a Jeno Nate Cty pana ‘host designed to fool the Romans, and preserve thecal of certain alt= ‘inogenic moon Anois mascara) Sl the meh sot empty {iste a name of that mushroom’ As engaging» claim a aye at Jess, wile nther meeyIngenry, nor actly shoo, wat at fn atheist theft Chistian ste And even we eet acd the lanai fringe, Van Harvey correc “So fara the be sora i conered, theresa populy held rio! ba shot Js tat reper with conederabeshepision™(T, p.159), 280 Alin Pentings 1V. Wy Are Not Mast Christians More Concerned? ‘So1HBChas not in general een sympathtictotadional Cristian ble it has hardly bon ar encouragement to the faithful. But the fll seem relatively tnconcered ofcourse, they fd tational biblical commentay ‘of great interest and importance, but the eles and atte 0 BC have hot seemed fo filter down to them, despite is dominance In manline seri Aries. According to Van Harvey, “Despite decades of esearch, the average Person fends to think ofthe life of Jess in mach the same terms as Chie Hans did thre centuries ago." Harvey ins tis zing: "Why it tha, ina culture go dominated by experts i every fl the opinion of New Testament historians has ado ite ince cn the public Ave od tional Christians jst ignoring inconvenient evidence? Un what follows wll try to answer these quesons. Obviously, HBC has contributed greatly fo ‘our knowledge ofthe Bible, In particular the cicumstances and cendions ‘ofits compotion; ithas given Us new alternatives a to howto understand the human authors and this has also given us new dens as to how toner stand the divine Author. Nevertheless, thee arin fact exelent restons for fending fo ignore that "onsderableskeplicem, of which Harvey speaks «do not mes claim that the ordinary person in the pe ignores beceuse Shelus tes reasons ceri in mind doubl she doesnot tay only hat these reasons ae ood ros for raditonal Christin oinore the dear onary sel of HOC. ‘What might thee reasons be? Well ofcourse on thing i hat skeptical Scripture scholars display vast dizngreement among themselves” There i sls the fact that quite number ofthe arguments they propote se st best \wholy inconclusive, Perhaps the endeaue vice ora ay ate he erential temptation of HBC is what we might lle Fallacy of Creeping Certtde ‘To practice this fallacy, you note tht some proposition As probable (8, ‘say with respet to your background knowledge k (wht you kao fo be trae you therefore aes eto Then you note tat a proposition Bis po ble with respect ie you thertore sax too to Then you nate that Cis probe to with rempect to AAR, and ala anne eto Ky simian for Gay) D, EF and G. You thn pronounce AKBECEDEEREEG high probable wth respect our evidence. But the fact (we les fom he probability calcults) that thse probabties must be mulipind—ao that in fact the probability of ARBUCKDKEAG i 9 fo the Mth power les than 5 But suppose we look int reasons or argument for peferting the ‘ess of HBC to thos of teeditonal commentary. Why shoul suppore thatthe former takes ower tothe teh than hele? Troe pene ‘ples are particularly important here. As understood Inthe intespretative fommunity of HBC, the preclude special divine acon inching spel tivine inspiration of Seypture and the cccurence of miracles. At Cle ‘ays, "Suddenly a vast panoply of divine das snd events recorded it ‘To (or Moe Kinds of Scripture Sclishp 261 scripture ae no lnge regarded 8 having actly happene” (above 2.250) Many aadene telglara and pre schelas pen tele {hat Tolchian HBC emia en ropa fe only nt lect respecte variety of Serpe sth or ey vty at sany hin the mateo scence (And many oho are rely ‘nal contains in Spur snap teva ay et service ote Trecho tel sanetow feng In ented ty that ts the epistenly respec rpivnged way of prsseing) Bat why hn Sire scholar shoald proce nhs opeee may or ppened both otal eal commentary and vars af HEC at ‘ocecep Teta’ inet Are thee ay econo semen these pringplest ” “ A. Force Majeure eso, they are extraordinary well hidden. Oe common suggestion, how ‘ever, seems tobe srt of appeal o free majeure we simply cannot help ‘Given our historical postion theres othng se we can do; we ae i the ‘rp of historical forces beyond ur contol thi thig ls bigger an ler ‘pe of ws). This reaction is typified by those, who Uke Harvey, Macsuarie, Gey, and other claim that owadsys given ou cultural sition, we fs ddonothave any options. There ae potent historical ore that impose these waysof thinking upon slik itor ot we ae Blown about by thee power: ful winds of doctrine "The causal nevus in spaces ime which he En lightenment science and philosophy lroduce into the Wester mind fs alto assumed by moder theologians and schol; since they partpate inthe modern word of sence both intellectually and etna they cn scarcely do anything else, says Gilkey (above, p 258), anther example it Bullman’ famous remark to the elect hat tisimposible fo use electra light andthe witless and to aval ourselves of moterm media! a srg Aicoveries and atthe same tne to believe inthe New Testament wort of spits and mira ™ But s not this view—that we are all compel by contemporary histories, forces to hod the set of vew in question historically nave Fst why think we proceed together ia okatep through history, al at any given ie pesforce holding the sme views and makingthe same asumptions? Clery ‘we do not do any such thing. The contemporary intellect word s muck more lke a hore race (or petape a demalion derby) than temp procession, moe ike batlground than » Demeesae Party fo ase, ‘where everyone an be counted on fo support the same slate At present fot ‘ramp there are many lke Macquarie, Harvey and Gilkey who xcept te semilelstie view that God (theres any sch person) could not o would ‘ot act miraculously in istoy. Butts not f couse the view of nary everyone at present hundred of millons woud eject The ft i tat fa mote people reject this view tham acept I (So even fle, a rere 252 Alin Plentings right about the inevitable dance of history, they would be wrong in thelr ‘Sts notion othe effect tat what hey os the caren step) ‘The utter obviousness ofthis fact suggests a second interpretation of {his paticlarustcation of Troetschian HOC. erhap what the polos realy mean not that ecryoe nowadays accept thi seme (ha {vay fae), Dut that everyone in the ow doen, Everyone who propedy ‘elated and has read is Kant and Hume (and Trl) and eet oh the mening ofthe witless and elec ight knows these ting as or he ‘est of humanity Gluing, suppose, those fur who have red our Kant Sn Hume but are unimpresed) heir problem is simple ignorance, Pet- taps people generally donot march lolstep through history, but those inthe Koo do; and right ow they al or nearly all eject special divine But even if we chauvnitally stick to educated Westerners this il oubifl tn exes. "The tndonal conception of mice" Macquarie ‘sys, "i ieconeble with our modern understanding ofboth scents and Isto” above, p25 empha ded) whom does his", ere refer? ‘To those who have gone fo univers, are welleducted, knows lest a ite sence, and have thought sbout the bearing of hese mates on the otbty of miracles? fs, the claim isonce mare whopping fal Very Inany selceducated people Gluing even some thelegiae) understand feienee and history im 2 way that is entirely compatible both with the onbity and with he actualy of mitoles Many phys and engineer Lnderstand lca ight and the witless” vay bette than Buln or Is contemporary followers, but nontiwles hold precy thos New {exten beefs Bulinann thinks incompatible with sting Cece Highs a adios. Thee ae large numbers of cated contemporaries (nding tren some with PAD who betiove Jesus realy and eral arose fom the ‘ead that God performs mites n he contemporary world and even hat ‘here re both demons and pia whose acvein the contemporary word ‘Ave mater of histor face thre ae any num of contemporain, and

    Você também pode gostar