From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:56:52 GMT

ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:

>My reasoning is this: theology is knowledge of God. Someone who truly
>knows God is a Saint, because of the transforming power of the knowledge
>and encounter with God. So Saints are to be defered to in matters of
>theology: the intuition of a Saint is more credible than the intuition of
>a scholar because of the special nature of theology: its Subject is
>personal and responds to the enquirer uniquely and dynamically. Of course,
>a Saint who is also a scholar (e.g. St Thomas Aquinas) is doubly good.
>Thus theology has a fundamentally mystical side, which outside of the
>methodology of science, though more real (in that God is the ground of all
>being). 

How do you know if someone is a Saint?  From what I read of the Roman
Catholic Church, it is most usual for someone to be declared a saint a
long time after their death.  Does this mean, then, that it is almost
impossible to trust modern scholarship, because we don't know who the
saints are :-)?

I agree wholeheartedly that theology is more than an academic pursuit.
However, I don't go along with your conclusion, that "the intuition of a
Saint is more credible than the intuition of a scholar".  You seem to say
that scholarship is intuition.  I presume you don't really mean that.  I
have known some very godly people in my time, who have held some extremely
strange views about some parts of the Bible.  Careful study of the text is
what everyone should be aiming for, as well as godliness.  The one without
the other can be misleading.

>While I agree with Erasmus that purity of original text can clear up 
>many doctrinal problems, and that knowledge of the original words
>and culture helps greatly, nevertheless, ultimately the Bible is
>interesting to the Christian because of the theological encounters possible
>through it. This encounter is collective within the organic church (Tradition)
>as well as personal, but you seem to want it to be synthetic too:
>based on the disciplined methodologies of science.

Why not?  What is wrong with using a disciplined methodology?  Perhaps
science is not the correct model, for we are in the realms of literature,
history, and theology.  However, reading the text carefully is an
essential for understanding it correctly.

>I wasn't intending on degrading biblical textual criticisms, and I certainly
>phrased my posting so that it wouldn't be any insult to Dr Thiering.
>What I was trying to say is that there is no reason why organising 
>facts in new ways (i.e.biblical criticism), even though those ways
>may be completely internally consistant, should provide any necessarily
>theologically true results where this is done outside the framework of
>real theology, which is done on our knees.

An interesting definition of biblical criticism!  I don't think that the
test of a theory of biblical criticism is that it be internally
consistent.  That is part of it, but it must also match with reality
(which, incidentally, is one of the big problems with Barbara Thiering's
work).  I would also suggest that it is possible to get some theologically
true things from Scripture from an atheistic perspective.  When it comes
to understanding a text, anyone who is prepared to do the necessary work
can make a reasonable attempt at understanding it.  Some texts are more
difficult than others, which is where the help of commentators is
invaluable.  Of course, when you expect God to speak to you through his
word, then that does make a difference.

I haven't expressed that terribly well, but I can't spare the time to make
it more lucid.  Undoubtedly, someone will point out where the problems
are, and I will try to clarify them.
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA
Newsgroups: aus.religion