For a generation or
more biblical scholarship has been committed to what is known as the historical method — that is, to the aim of seeing the books of the Bible in their historical setting and understanding them as nearly as possible in the way their writers and first readers understood them.
Not exact matches
Biblical interpretation naturally absorbs a lot of ink; but «modern biblical scholars» will be surprised to learn that many of them regard miracle stories as fictions «designed to influence the common folk of an ancient and more simple time»: a view closer to old - fashioned anticlericalism of Thomas Paine's vintage than modern scholarship even of a radical
Biblical interpretation naturally absorbs a lot of ink; but «modern
biblical scholars» will be surprised to learn that many of them regard miracle stories as fictions «designed to influence the common folk of an ancient and more simple time»: a view closer to old - fashioned anticlericalism of Thomas Paine's vintage than modern scholarship even of a radical
biblical scholars» will be surprised to learn that many of them regard miracle stories as fictions «designed to influence the common folk of an ancient and
more simple time»: a view closer to old - fashioned anticlericalism of Thomas Paine's vintage than modern
scholarship even of a radical stripe.
to the new intellectual environment, combined with the fact that Wesley did seem easily to appropriate the emerging
biblical scholarship of his day, are grounds for suggesting that the Wesleyan tradition is
more appropriately viewed as non-fundamentalist, even among those who wish to live in
more direct continuity with the spiritual dynamic of the founder.
Preachers and teachers particularly, but thoughtful Christians
more generally, have long lamented the slide of
biblical scholarship into hyperspecialized studies of ancient texts in remote contexts.
It was in this way that fundamentalism, under the guise of evangelicalism, was becoming
more dominant in the churches at the very same time as academic theology and
biblical scholarship were becoming
more radical.
Call it what you want, it is just
more media hype to promote a new, imminently forthcoming book with shoddy
Biblical and archaeological
scholarship or historical accuracy.
From Origen's hope that salvation will eventually be received by all, to Karl Rahner's assertion that other religions can serve as pointers to Christ, to Clark Pinnock's
biblical case for a
more optimistic view of salvation, I've found that tucked away in the dusty corners of Christian libraries is a wealth of
scholarship on the subject.
If I am asked to identify
more precisely what
biblical scholarship and Reformation traditions have taught us on this subject, I quote one of the eminent theologians of the first part of this century, who wrote:
That charge might
more easily be made against those who contemptuously dismiss modern
scholarship in the name of the a priori truth of the
biblical text.»
3)
Biblical scholarship relating the creation account of Genesis and ancient Near Eastern cosmology continues to become
more accessible to the average reader, so Christian university students are in a great position to learn from Bible professors why a literal, scientific reading of Genesis 1 and 2 need not be a fundamental element of the Christian faith.
so - called «critical»
scholarship — especially the
biblical variety, with its ideological stridencies — I am,
more.
This is such a truism that one is almost ashamed to pen the words, and yet it remains a fact that, in a great deal of the
more conservative
biblical scholarship, it does seem to be assumed that the appeal to factual accuracy would he as valid and important a factor in the case of ancient Near Eastern religious texts as it would be in a modern western court of law or in a somewhat literally - minded western congregation.
The man who does not yet know (and that still means all of us) that we know Christ no longer according to the flesh, can learn it from critical
biblical scholarship: the
more radically he is shocked, the better it is both for him and for the cause.
To me, for example, one of the most exciting recent developments in Spinoza
scholarship is Carlos Fraenkel's argument that Spinoza could have adopted a
more conciliatory approach to
biblical interpretation, one that would reinterpret the Bible in accordance with his teachings, thus mitigating their heretical tone.
When a man with no
biblical training whatsoever is considered
more qualified to teach than a woman with a PhD in theology or a woman whose work in New Testament
scholarship is renowned the world over, we are not seeing complementariaism at work, but patriarchy.
They want to avoid duplicating the results of traditional
biblical scholarship without depriving their readers of its insights, and they seek to exploit some of the
more important methods of contemporary criticism without turning The Literary Guide into a forum for debating sectarian theorists.
From
biblical scholarship alone, for example, we probably know
more today about the life and times of Jesus than was known at any period since the second generation of Christians.
In a
more recent work, American Catholic
Biblical Scholarship: A History From the Early Republic to Vatican II, Fogarty offers, among other things, a useful antidote to the claims of some Catholic «restorationists» that the anti-Modernist excesses of the early twentieth century were the invention of fevered post-Vatican II liberal imaginations.
But it was also the case that, as Alter moved from making brilliant observations about a small selection of texts to writing large commentaries on entire
biblical books, the weaknesses of his
scholarship became
more visible.