gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (06/24/85)
>However we are now getting into areas of speculation. We are no longer >dealing with the plain sense of Scripture, but with Scripture plus some >sort of argument that what God inspires can't have errors. It is a specifically Lutheran argument that the "true" meaning of scripture is locked up in the "plain sense" of the text. Certainly an Origen or Augustine or any of the Medieval bible exegetes holding to the four-fold sense of scripture would disagree with you. Interestingly enough, the "plain sense" of the text is on the bottom of the hierarchical scheme as regards the quintessential meaning of the text. The proper ordering for the Medieval "hermeneutic" would be as follows: "plain sense" - allegorical - moral - anagogical. If *they* are dealing with Scripture plus some sort of argument that what God inspires can't have errors then aren't *you* dealing with scripture and some sort of argument for a privileged hermeneutic of the "plain sense" of the text ? How do you justify your assertion that the "plain sense:" of the text is the reading one ought prefer over against an allegorical, moral or anagogical reading ? >That claim is... >clearly false for cases other than Scripture. God has inspired lots of >people since the Biblical authors, and none of them has been infallible. >So we are back to a speculative argument that essentially involves claiming >to know what God would or would not do. Is it not a speculative argument to say that God has "inspired lots of people since the Biblical authors" and just as much a claim to know what God would or would not do ? If you believe that God has inspired people throughout history and you are willing to make the claim that these people communicated this "whatever" in culturally conditioned and determined "language" then I would wonder how you would disentangle this "message" from its specific form of articulation. That is, the "plain sense" of the text is (in Morton Smiths words) "utterly mythological". The "plain sense" of the text makes some bold assertions regarding the existence of certain entities such as demons, spirits, angels and a whole host of other (mythological) characters. Beyond this, the bible claims to know the causal nexus and links physical events to the working of these (mythological) beings. I would doubt that someone like you would take 1st century cosmology at face value - but I think that you would be forced into it via your valorization of the "plain sense" of the text - there is nothing plain-er in the sense of the text than that it "buys into" 1st cosmology hook, line and sinker. In practice, I doubt that you do anything different than the Fundamentalist in this case. In a way, a literalist has a more consistent and principled hermeneutic than you do. Do you assert the existence of demons and that they are the "causes" of various mental disorders ? Does one go to an exorcist to cure a mental disorder ? What recommendation would you make to a friend whose son suffers from epilepsy ? The "plain sense:" of the biblical text is clear as to the cause of this sometimes erratic behaviour. Even though you would deny it I think that you do in practice exactly what the medieval allegorists did. That is, exegete the text on the basis of "contemporary" sensibilites making whatever adjustments are necessary to the text through the use of different interpretive techniques keeping always in mind that the text is "true" or "right" or that the text must agree with tradition (catholic context). If the hermeneutical axis for Fundamentalism is "inerrancy" and that for Catholicism is tradition then yours is (probably) a blend modernism and Protestant Orthodoxy and I would doubt that you would have any qualms in exegeting out of existence such things as epileptic demons and denying the causal nexus that the bible, in its plain-est sense, asserts contra your statements that the "plain sense " of the text is prefered over other readings. >I think we should be very wary of assertions that God would not allow >certain things to happen. The Jews felt very certain that God would not >allow the Messiah to be killed. It seems that God is willing to subject >himself to the processes of human history in ways that we would not guess >beforehand. As regards how it is possible to have a "suffering Messiah" see Susan Handelmans book: The Slayers of Moses. One might say that Jesus became the Christ not through an act of God but rather, through an act of exegesis. >My position is that the Biblical authors were competent but not error-free, >and not independent of the knowledge of their times. This position is very >different than the more extreme critical one, which holds that the Bible >can't be used as a source for historical knowledge at all. The "extreme critical view" also contains the assertion that the bible is an excellent historical source for ancient cosmology/mythology and interpretive techniques (esp Pauls par excellance use of greek allegory in Gal). But after this is accomplished it is best to throw out the bath water and the "baby" to boot as this "scholarly endeavor" (historical reconstruction) has little to do with dynamics of religion as lived in believing communities today and little to do with the state of physical and causal Reality. Gary