Bible written and compiled by NON-PROTESTANTS
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 ?
1) IF NOT...INDICATE WHY.
2) IF SO...WHAT ARE THEY AND HOW DO WE ADDRESS THEM?
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.
Trick question
The thing about Protestants is that there's no such thing as a normative Protestant, whereas there is, at least in theory, a normative Catholic, and a normative Orthodox. There is no single corpus of Protestant theology to compare to the Bible.
That said.
1) A theology's closeness to what the writer intended isn't necessarily a great measure. Look at Isaiah. No Christian (or Jewish) theology is very close at all to what 1st. Isaiah intended. Not even deutero-Isaiah is close to 1st Isaiah.
2) Calvinism's big proof text (Jacob have I loved...) has absolutely nothing to do with any of the points in TULIP. In context, there are very good reasons to love Jacob over Esau; namely, Esau thought his Covenant with God was worth trading with a cup of soup. (similarly, Wesleyans make a similar error and think in terms of the same dichotomy.
3) Luther's faith and Spirit/works and Law dichotomy is too simplistic a reading of Paul at the expense of James. Pre-Lutheran biblical interpretation didn't see it as a dichotomy Luther did.
4) Focus on substituion theory as opposed to theosis theory has greatly impoverished many evangelicals, who pay way too much attention to not going to Hell. (to be fair, this theory sort of originated with Anselm and featured into Lenten preaching before the Reformation, but became a much bigger deal later.
5) Forced polygamy. So, it's probably overgeneralizing Muenster, and at least the Lutherans helped put an end to that, but still.
6) the historical Jesus. Liberal Protestants are Protestants too, and without sola scriptura's singlemindedness, the Jesus seminar would've never happened, and "Christians" who want to turn Jesus into a watery Buddha wouldn't have any academic credibility.