tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post5544631483601910627..comments2023-10-12T14:09:33.965-07:00Comments on The Biblia Hebraica Blog: The Bible and Cultural ControversyDouglas Mangumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-79265809806695819862012-09-26T13:00:44.664-07:002012-09-26T13:00:44.664-07:00I don't think modern conservatives are at faul...I don't think modern conservatives are at fault here. In fact, I think they're right, even if they don't realize why. The definition of marriage as a one-woman and one-man relationship is defined by the canon as a whole. Christ defines that relationship as normative and the rest as accommodation. One can say that his is a culturally conditioned fallacy, but that depends upon one's view of Jesus. In point of fact, he is actually critiquing a contemporary view of marriage there with what he takes to be normative based upon what I call a "priority argument" rooted in the creation narrative, and thus drawing all of the canon under that criticism. Hence, it is perfectly right to say with Jesus, if one accepts his teaching as normative, that the Bible teaches the normative marital relationship as one man and one woman, which then in turn condemns anything that is not of that relationship. The diversity is brought together in the teaching of Jesus here. One may not agree with Jesus, but since most Christians do, it is hardly something for which they can be faulted.B. C. Hodgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02828477115799852133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-43496535215134075452012-08-04T20:10:43.100-07:002012-08-04T20:10:43.100-07:00The tendency for conservative interpreters to err ...The tendency for conservative interpreters to err on the side of the universal brings to my mind a recent struggle I had with Gordon Wenham's book _Psalms as Torah_ in his appeal to canonical criticism. He explicitly stated he was using it to avoid speculative arguments, as though speculation was a theologically problematic exercise that one can avoid if one only looks to editors instead of authors. The fact is, editors are no more transparent with their intentions than authors, and neither provide a monologic truth. Speculation is a part of interpretation, and this is why we choose to study in community (whether those be communities of faith or academia). We overcome the problems inherent in our speculative activities by subjecting them to the critical judgment of cautious and concerned communities. And this brings us full circle to your final sentence: "The bottom line here is that we would all benefit from more open dialogue and less partisan bickering over whether the Bible supports our cause or not."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-38703738706302817452012-08-04T09:37:54.832-07:002012-08-04T09:37:54.832-07:00I think we're in agreement, Joseph. My point w...I think we're in agreement, Joseph. My point was exactly that people are looking at the Bible from their encultured POV and claiming their way is the right way. It may not have been clear from my post, but I agree with you that the logic of accommodating cultural change is fine. I advocate reading the often misused passages in Paul's letters about women being silent as addressed to specific situations, not as statements of universal principles. The problem is not so much that people are explicitly saying "the biblical author agreed with me" as much as they are refusing to acknowledge the existence of the author. They see the Bible as having an inherent universal meaning that transcends the author's original time and place. But this is also where the messiness comes in--who makes the call whether something has universal applicability versus limited applicability? Conservative interpreters tend to err on the side of the universal, albeit in an inconsistent way. I advocate open discussion and acknowledging that the Bible doesn't always give a clear cut unified position on some controversial subjects. I guess I'm just tired of people on all sides of various debates invoking the Bible's authority for their cause. Of course, that very phenomenon should make people realize the Bible speaks with a multiplicity of voices, so why don't they realize it?Douglas Mangumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-44293445959709167722012-08-03T21:12:53.216-07:002012-08-03T21:12:53.216-07:00Nice thoughts Doug. Most people I see engaging the...Nice thoughts Doug. Most people I see engaging the marriage discussion as it relates to the Bible and culture who embrace today's cultural changes are making an argument from an encultured understanding of biblical principles. I don't see many people arguing that the biblical authors were open to homosexuality or embraced "gay marriage;" rather, the principles the biblical authors understood and articulated in their own day are best understood in our own day as advocating for the cultural change we already see underway. I see nothing inherently problematic with this logic from a methodological perspective. It does make things messy (e.g. how do we determine that an encultured principle should take us beyond and even against its original application?), but we tend to get over the messiness as time passes and an issue becomes more accepted by the mainstream. I think this is where the confusion lies today. Many people are appealing to the Bible, but their appeals are enculturated. It isn't an attempt to say, "The biblical author's agreed with me!" It is a much more complicated interpretive process. And eventually a victor will emerge, for better or worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com