Welcome to Gaia! ::

DISCLAIMER: After waiting around for Rookherst or New Found Light to start the Satan/Lucifer thread back up, I realized the burden of starting the first thread in this guild is on me, not them. sweatdrop I racked my brain trying to think of a subject to discuss that would be appropriate (after all, I want this guild to be a place for the study of diverse religions, not just Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, which is all I'm very familiar with at the moment). I finally gave up and just decided on a topic I am familiar with, so don't take this topic to be exemplary of what kind of discussion is to be expected here. Feel free to start whatever threads you want, as long as they pertain to some current accepted theology.

I've been reading this book called The Misunderstood Jew lately (ah, the freedom of having finished my degree and having free time to read whatever I want). It's written by this professor of theology at Vanderbilt University, Amy Jill-Levine (who happens to be an Orthodox Jew). The book is all about how Christians and Jews misunderstand how Jesus fit into the Jewish culture and religious practice of the 1st century AD, and how for centuries, Christians misread the Gospels and the books of the Apostles in a way that was theologically anti-Jewish. (Likewise, she says that modern-day Jews often assume that Christians oppose Judaism as a religion based on Biblical scripture, which is not true due to the way that Christians have been able to read the texts in light of modern scholarship.)

In any case, here is the passage in the book that prompts my question:



This passage took me aback, first, because as a historian (I guess I can call myself that now), I feel that the historical approach to something like a Biblical text is of the utmost importance to its true understanding. Also, Levine uses historical arguments to put Jesus in his 1st century Jewish setting, which she says is crucial to understanding Jesus in a Jewish context. So this seemed incredibly antithetical to the entire point of the book in the first place.

Second of all, if texts can take on new meanings over time, is it therefore acceptable for Christians to read Revelation and the prophets of the Hebrew Bible (mostly Daniel) to support their belief in an end-times prophecy? Or does the historical meaning of the book as a political polemic trump any new theological readings of the text?

My ultimate question is: what is most important when it comes to reading scripture -- historical context or theological value (which can change over time)?

(I apologize for the length of this first post. xp )

Interestingly, in both a documentary about Nostradamus and the Apocalypse, current events and historic context were brought up.

Despite the amazingly broad way in which Nostradamus' words can be brought to modern interpretation there were situations in his very current existance which they related to, and they very well might have been a way of political criticism and "news reporting" that people could read. They were so unspecific it couldn't be tied to current kings etc, but people who KNEW would understand.

Some similar things were said about many "apocalyptic" texts. They may well have been commentary and prediciton about very current events.

As well, apocalyptic writings were fairly common around hard times. It was a way of bringing some feeling of righteous justice into the minds of those who were being oppressed. It often saw the oppressed people being just and right and therefore at the end of all this badness they would come out truely happy.

In historic context, a lot of "important" theologic text, might just been flowery news reporting.


One also has to consider the society in which a religion is created. Also the existing social preoccupations, moral views and standards. Historic context is VERY important...why did the greeks value their gods in the ways and times in which they did? We need history to understand it. And the same applies to current religious standards.

Obviously people need to see original meanings in their current world or the writings are USELESS to them.

So we can manipulate things...but it really isn't WORTH anything out of it's original context. We'd just be warping someone's writing.

Gandhi said that he admired Christianity but that most Christians aren't Jesuslike. The same can be said about Christianity's history as well as the history of just about every religion ever (Quakers and Mennonites exempt, yeay Friends!)

It is possible to just sit down and read a religion's text(s) and some unbiased books about that religion and just take that. That's what I've done with the few Eastern religions I've studied. Separating the religion from the context is appropriate in some circumstances such as passages about souls, the afterlife, etc. But for rules on living one's life and interaction are purely context-based and that should be taken into consideration. But in general, I think that a combination of both should be used.

Well, it's hard to live up to the reputation of the son of God. It's a hard act to follow. xd

I have to say that historical context is important to know what the author meant, but theological value is important because it is what we as a modern society believe.

It's like an old joke I've heard. A monk had just moved up a level in his monastery, to the clerical level. The head cleric showed him what they were doing: copying down the Bible from a copy chain, leading back to the original scrolls, which were kept in the lowest level of the monastery. The new cleric asked, "Well, how do we know we're not copying down an error made by an older cleric?" The next day, he looked everywhere, and eventually found the eldest cleric sobbing in front of the original copy. Asking him what was wrong, he got this reply: "Celebrate! The word was celebrate!"

See what I mean?

Jesus is one thing...Try following Buddha! Now THAT is a hard act to follow!