There are few things that annoy me more than listening to or reading the words of "Biblical Scholars" who have no faith.
A while back I took a graduate class on the Gospel of Mark. One of the commentaries we were assigned to read was written by a man who did not believe in the Resurrection. When I learned this, I no longer cared about anything else the man had to say. The professor and I did not see eye to eye on this point.
Now, as I read through Daniel, I am faced with a similar problem. I have two commentaries on Daniel. The two commentaries date Daniel's authorship very differently. One says it was written shortly after Cyrus' capture of Babylon in 539BC. The other dates it in the 2nd century BC. I was confused by this until I read my NIV Study Bible explanation of the two dates. The 2nd century view is held by those who believe long range predictive prophesy is impossible.
I am now torn about what to do with the commentary: do I give it away, or do I burn it?
If you don't believe that God can speak eternal truths that are impossible to come by through any human means, you need to read the bible a few more times through, and FOR MY SANITY'S SAKE, DON'T VOMIT YOUR FAITHLESSNESS ON THE REST OF US THROUGH YOUR COMMENTARIES!
Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become the fool so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness", and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."
I Corinthians 3:18-20
I Corinthians 3:18-20
5 comments:
Oh yeah? Well that's what she said!
(I haven't read this yet; just practicing scoffing).
yeah, i gotcha...
and i pretty much trashed commentaries a long time ago.
it's hard enough to figure out the bible without having to figure out whether some commentary author is full of it or not.
peace
Miller's "it's hard enough to figure out the bible. . ." - that line will be in my next bibliography.
It's a sign of the problem with the questions a lot of commentaries are getting at. Anybody with a PhD can write one, but I've met far fewer people who can talk with authority about the meaning of scripture. Not much different than in Jesus day, from the sound of it. I figure any old agnostic will do for a historical critical study, but I'm a lot more interested in the way a faithful community interprets the text.
Thanks for your thoughts.
All three synoptic gospels tell how the people were amazed at Jesus' teachings because he spoke with authority.
When I first read that, I thought it meant that Jesus was speaking without any doubts, as though he knew all the answers (which is true). However I am sure that the Pharisees spoke in the same way. So what was the recognizable difference?
I think it might be that the Pharisees and teachers of the law knew the bible, whereas Jesus knew the GOD of the bible. The commentators of the day knew the letter of the law, Jesus knew (and practiced) the heart of the law.
I'm a lot more interested in the way a faithful community interprets the text.
So are you saying the best commentary is when a body of believers demonstrates the gospel in their daily lives?
Exactly. I think that's where the text meets meaning: where people are submitting to and enacting the Word. I know that different communities of disciples have interpreted and applied the text differently, but I think the meaning of the text is best measured by the fruit it produces, than by its being accurately understood through the lens of scholarship. I think what you said about Jesus in relation to other authorities is right on. He says to those guys, you're great at professional exegesis, but you would not seek me - the reason the text was written. Or something like that (Jn 5:36ff-ish).
Post a Comment