Bible written and compiled by NON-PROTESTANTS

thewill's picture

This thread could lighten up the tone.

OK. So it should be read like on of those "National Inquirer" headlines. Lots of drama!

"Bible written and compiled by NON-PROTESTANTS!!!"

Eveyone goes, "HUUUUUHHHHHH!!! OOOOOOHHH!!!"

But we all know it is obvious because there were no Protestants alive and there would not be for ___________ years (that's the trivia question--two points).

Basic thought:

Does modern Protestant thought, in and of itself, contain assumptions that are 'alien' to that of the Biblical authors and compilers?

Put another way, are we predisposed to misunderstanding scripture because of our more recent and 'reactive' theological tradition ?


I know it sounds 'odd.' But I wonder what people think.

To narrow the scope we can focus on NT era as a contrasting era of authors and compilers. (ie: "...the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament...").

PS-Got to have the word 'alien' in all National Inquirer headline.

fi11222's picture

Reform / 'Reaction'

I would like to restart this thread because I think it is a most interesting topic

Answer to question 1) : I believe our understanding of scpripture is of course coloured by all the accumulated interpretations which have been handed down to us by our predecessors in the Faith. The "reactive" protestant theology is indeed, in my case, the dominant factor shaping my own understanding.

But isn't all theology 'reactive' ? Looking at the history of the Church, I see an uninterrupted process of sucessive 'reactions' against previous interpretive positions. The great debates against heresies in the IInd and IIIrd century AD, the fashioning of the creeds and of trinitarian theology against Arianism, the repeated 'reforms' of the Church and monastic orders in the Middles Ages, the fights of Thomas Aquians against the Averroists and other factional groups in the University, ... All these are 'reactions' and it seems that no theological position has ever been put forward if not in 'reaction' to another one.

Is this surprising ? or to be considered as bad ? I do not think so. The very idea that we are on a narrow path entails that we are constantly led astray by temptation. This is true in our daily life and also obviously in preaching and in Theology. Therefore, we are in constant need of 'reaction' in order to pull ourselves back on track towards the wicket gate. The protestant 'reaction' is only one of the most famous and the one which looms largest in our interpretive landscape because it is the one closest to us.

Obviously, there is no answer to question 2) ....