Well if you look over at the lovely sidebar then you will find a few new links. Some of them are Podcasts that I thought you all would be interested to hear/read/see. The other link, Old Testament as Literature, is the blog that my OT as Lit. class has; people will be posting a lot of comments on there and I thought it might lead to some interesting topics that we could discuss here. Keep in mind that most of these people do not have the experience that we have had nor also that these are assignments for them so they may not go as deep as some of us do. We (in the class) only had to do about 400-500 word posts. So other then that I don't really have much else to post about or any big questions to ask.
But if you would like we can talk about one thing that came up on the Theology Rocks board on Facebook. It was did 2nd Temple Judaism believe in a mainly grace based or works based (I am hesitant to say salvation) so I will say system of justification? So you all can give your thoughts, I look forward to your answers.
Peace and Grace
Jesse
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In the notes for the class you had on 1/11, there is the statement made:
"We will familiarize ourselves with some (if not all) of the following reading strategies: Form Criticism, Redaction Criticism, Post-structuralism, cultural hermeneutics, etc."
My question is why Structuralism not a method of reflection in the class? Not only should it be vital for understanding Post-structuralism, but it revels truth in its own right.
Wright picks it up in NTPG of course with the Little Red Riding Hood outline. I forget the scholar that Wright uses, but bringing up how stories do use broadly structured outlines. It might be something that you might bring up in class.
Josh I believe that they are using Brettler is calling that Form Criticism. He uses it by looking at the type of book that is being written, such as poetry, history, etc. Is that what you are talking about? It has been a while since I read NTPG but from what I remember it sounds like that.
But you also remember me talking about how in this class it seems that we are combining criticisms. Calling literary criticism historical criticism and etc. Also this is the OT as literature not a historical study of the Hebrew Bible or a Religious Studies course. So they have/get to do things in other ways, which I think we would call easier. Since we study the Bible in what is usually referred to as "Higher Criticism."
However, if something like it comes up again I will say something about it. For now we are actually getting into the text.
D. Patte, What is Structural Exegesis? (1976)
Griemas, 1966
Wright, NTPG, 71ff
It's not form criticism. Structuralism sees greater structures in literary works. The basic ones that Wright picks up on is the Sender, Object, Receiver, Agent, Helper, Opponent model. The Sender sends the object through the agent to the receiver, and the agent has both helpers and opponents. (Mother sends food to grandmother through Red, who gets opposed by the wolf, but helped by the woodsman.)
A comment on the actual question this time. As I said in Facebook, the belief that the side which says "grace alone" might be correct in theory, but in practice Jews believed in grace and works, seems to me very difficult to show. After all, we don't have direct access to practice, but rather to theory as stated in primary documents.
I think there are two issues at stake. First is the misunderstanding of what sola gracia and sola fide really are (and it might be argued that Reformational theology misuses these terms all the time). They really not separable. One does not talk about salvation by God's grace without talking about an individual's responsibility to have faith. The only group that I think that does believe in something like that is hyper-Calvinists, who believe that it is ONLY by God's choice. That is a heresy, according to the first phrase of most creeds ("I believe..."). To say that Jews were not expected to not only have faith but to uphold the Law to keep their promise to me is no different than saying that Christians are expected to have faith.
The other, larger, problem is that people have a misunderstanding of the heresy of Pelagianism. Pelagius said, basically, that a person can initiate and complete their own salvation by good works. Semi-pelagians said that while people initiate their salvation with good works, God completes it by His grace.
Well, both positions are heretical, NOT because working towards one's salvation is involved, but because of where salvation is offered. In the heresies, humans initiate their salvation. The point that orthodox Christianity holds to is that God initiates and offers salvation.
In Christianity, this works out by God offering His son, that whosoever believes in Him will be saved (John 3:16). In Judaism, it works out as whoever keeps the Law will be saved (e.g., Deut 28:2). And so in both cases we talking about a God initiated type of salvation. People who are quick to call Judaism a "works-righteousness" type of salvation wrongly bring to mind Pelagius too often. In all forms of salvation, something is expected of the individual. However, it is God's grace that is the basis for the initiation and completion of that salvation.
Post a Comment