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 ?

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.

jroberts's picture

Do you think like a

Do you think like a Mediterranean?

I mean, does the language used to talk to 1st century Mediterraneans, Hellenized Jews and God-Fearers (nonJews who believed in God without going through conversion), galilean farmers, and Athenian philosophers, appeal to you? Do you inhabit the same discursive framework, the same narrative, the same history, the same epistomolgy, the same poetry? In short, is ad fontes a legitimate posibility?

Basically, you're arguing that one needs to go back to "primitive Christianity," whereas I would say that one ought be in a line from primitive Christianity, in harmony on the essentials but taking advantage of Tradition. I'm not very interested in the "ought" question. I think "can" is a more useful discussion. Can you think like a first century Christian?

I'm not a first century Christian. First, the NT would be gone; those who sat "at the feet of the apostles" didn't have any of the Gospels, nor Revelation. They were restricted to some of the epistles. They mainly used the OT, including the books in the LXX and not in the MT or Qumran. The very first Christians were farmers and fisherment. Outside Judea, they thought like Hellenized Jews. They were constantly threatened with martyrdom. A lot of them followed the Jewish Mitzvot still. Do you live off agriculture? Do you think like a Hellenized Jew? Are you threatened with martyrdom? Do you follow the 613 Mitzvot?

That is, somethings are simply qualiatively different. In a way, the worlds of the first century and 21st century are on opposites sides of a 2000 year wide Chasm. But, in other ways, they're not. First, in union w/ Jesus, particularly through the Eucharist and Baptism. Second, through the continued unfolding to the Truth in Tradition. There is a difference but a continuity between the 1st century believer and the 21st century believes. I would suggest that the return to early Christianity you want isn't possible, since the 1st century is inaccessible to a white boy living in America in 2007. But continuity with the 1st century is possible, through understanding the connection between the 1st and 21st century in Christ through the Eucharist and Baptism.




Advertisements