A few days ago, I was speaking with an aspiring Bible translator, annoyingly challenging her on the point of bible translation. It seems like Bible translation is this gung-hoe commitment to bring the Biblical text to non-text-based cultures. In my understanding, most people in these remote tribes are not sitting around reading books; the void in their heart is not one and the same with the void on their book shelf. No, these people’s entire view of the world is given to them orally, through the stories, teachings, and traditions of their community and its leaders. So why the push for Bible translation? Well, because we (that includes me) think the text is special, or, more commonly, strongly, and incorrectly, that it is necessary. Some belief along these lines seems to be the only thing that could sustain the 10-20 year commitment bible translation demands.
But the problem for me, and I think, thought they might not realize it, for many other Christians, is that we really don’t think the Biblical text is that special or necessary. Thought we, or at least I, tend to view the Bible as the Christian’s bread of life, it isn’t, and Jesus says so himself (Jn 5:39). The gospel, not the gospels stand at the heart of Christianity. We are saved, not because we buy into to inerrancy or plenary verbal theory of inspiration, but because we buy into the message of Jesus and believe in him as the Messiah who dies for sin and is raised in victory (or something proximal to that).
Maybe, thought, the Bible, while not necessary for salvation, is so for Christian life. Yet, it wouldn’t seem so from our hermeneutics. In most churches, we read the bible for a minute, and then talk about. And if it brought us to focus in closer on the text, that would be good. But it seems that so often the point of Bible teaching is to get one’s students to look thought the details of the text and to the abstracted, life changing principles it contains. For example, the entire point of systematic theology is to get at those principles and doctrines scripture contains. It’s as if systematic theology often sees itself as separating the wheat from the chaff, the meaning and real important doctrine from its textual casing. The theologian or Bible teacher is the great liberator, freeing doctrine and principle from its textual imprisonment. So, the take away from the sermon is never textual; it’s conceptual. It’s “Jesus loves us”; “Jesus wants us to obey him.” [Is it as if no matter how plenary verbal we are in theory, we are neo-orthodox in practice? I'm speaking way beyond my knowledge here, as usual]. But do we leave loving the text, or an abstraction of and from it?
I think this whole musing brings to a question of texts in general. Are we meant to look through them or at them. Are they windows or paintings? If they are windows, then all that really matters is what’s on the other side of them. But what if one can see what’s on the other side of the window other than through the window? If it is what we see that matters, of what concern is the means by which we see it? Yet this is precisely the problem I am having with Bible translators. Why can't just one man from each tribe come learn another language, and speak the Bible to his community? That is how the community would learn normally, plus its quicker and more direct. The end is the same; the people learn to live out of stories they believe to be true. But, if the text is a painting, then the viewer’s response is not consider the scene; it is also to appreciate and love the portrayal. Is not that almost the heart of loving art, loving the precision of the stroke, the blending of color, the contour of the line. But if that is what it is to love art, then what is it to love a text? And, how dangerously are our hermeneutics at odds with a love of the Biblical text?
But the problem for me, and I think, thought they might not realize it, for many other Christians, is that we really don’t think the Biblical text is that special or necessary. Thought we, or at least I, tend to view the Bible as the Christian’s bread of life, it isn’t, and Jesus says so himself (Jn 5:39). The gospel, not the gospels stand at the heart of Christianity. We are saved, not because we buy into to inerrancy or plenary verbal theory of inspiration, but because we buy into the message of Jesus and believe in him as the Messiah who dies for sin and is raised in victory (or something proximal to that).
Maybe, thought, the Bible, while not necessary for salvation, is so for Christian life. Yet, it wouldn’t seem so from our hermeneutics. In most churches, we read the bible for a minute, and then talk about. And if it brought us to focus in closer on the text, that would be good. But it seems that so often the point of Bible teaching is to get one’s students to look thought the details of the text and to the abstracted, life changing principles it contains. For example, the entire point of systematic theology is to get at those principles and doctrines scripture contains. It’s as if systematic theology often sees itself as separating the wheat from the chaff, the meaning and real important doctrine from its textual casing. The theologian or Bible teacher is the great liberator, freeing doctrine and principle from its textual imprisonment. So, the take away from the sermon is never textual; it’s conceptual. It’s “Jesus loves us”; “Jesus wants us to obey him.” [Is it as if no matter how plenary verbal we are in theory, we are neo-orthodox in practice? I'm speaking way beyond my knowledge here, as usual]. But do we leave loving the text, or an abstraction of and from it?
I think this whole musing brings to a question of texts in general. Are we meant to look through them or at them. Are they windows or paintings? If they are windows, then all that really matters is what’s on the other side of them. But what if one can see what’s on the other side of the window other than through the window? If it is what we see that matters, of what concern is the means by which we see it? Yet this is precisely the problem I am having with Bible translators. Why can't just one man from each tribe come learn another language, and speak the Bible to his community? That is how the community would learn normally, plus its quicker and more direct. The end is the same; the people learn to live out of stories they believe to be true. But, if the text is a painting, then the viewer’s response is not consider the scene; it is also to appreciate and love the portrayal. Is not that almost the heart of loving art, loving the precision of the stroke, the blending of color, the contour of the line. But if that is what it is to love art, then what is it to love a text? And, how dangerously are our hermeneutics at odds with a love of the Biblical text?
Thanks for writing that up, Nik. Great use of analogies, although that last one got kind of out of control with the scuba divers and all that. I thought the taxicab would make an appearance; you used that example on Monday night to describe the biblical text, which fulfills its purpose in taking us from the text to the message.
ReplyDeleteMy question in return is, does belief in plenary verbal inspiration demand a commitment to Scripture as painting? Regardless of how most believers in that doctrine live out their profession, isn't the painting view most consistent with that? But maybe you already said that.
This is deep waters, Nik, way above my head. You have landed yourself right in the middle of some questions that have plagued a number of related disciplines: literary criticism, philosophy of language, translation studies, and of course, missiology, to name a few.
How are you going to keep biblical studies together with broader philosophical issues? That's what I want to know, as an interdisciplinary aspirant.
Check out my new blog, kaleidobible.blogspot.com
Collin, regarding my post, I took your advice to heart, and exercised the liberty to excise my scuba diver; I really couldn't get the zoo out of my mind; i was thinking about monkeys before that... ugh, I guess I need some sleep. lol
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think that those who adhere to plenary verbal should be more inclined to view the scripture as painting, that is, to get caught in the text a bit more. My problem was that it seems we do not do so.
Additionally, I wasn't sure what your question meant. But I think right now the rise of modernism and its search for objectivity might have a lot of import here. It is almost as if narrative shrouds any truth or message in particularity, and subjects it to the subjectivity of the reader (I know that last portion glosses over a lot of theory). The quest for depersonalized, universal truth may be quite the factor in the historical-critical, "reconstruct-what-really-happened" approach to scriptures. At at this juncture, then the rise of post-modernism (driven by philosophical disillusionment as well as some sort of globalization (i.e. people becoming more exposed to the diversity in the world, and the untenability of a "single human reason" etc) observes that that there really is no "universal" truth, at least from a sociological (!interdisciplinary flag!) perspective. Rather, all truths and meanings are socially embedded; thus, post-liberalism is afforded the philosophical context (motivation and justification) for attempting, no, preferring to understand the Biblical narrative from the thought-world of its own authors, as well as for trying to place one's self within that thought world, even if one cannot not completely abandon the tenacious belief in the "unfactuality" of that world.
So, construe post liberalism as a reaction to historical-critical method, which stemmed from modernism, and as partner/child of postmodernism, which is birthed both by philosophy and globalization. That should do it! Of course, this is just me connecting the dots in my head, and I really am not sure if they should be connected this way. Nonetheless, it is certainly incorperating broader philosophical concerns. What do you think about turning all this into a thesis?! Its encouraging to think that it ties in with our thoughts from the summer, about viewing the Bible as narrative, and about the rise of systematic-theology-view of scripture.
As always, thanks your thoughts Collin. You are a sick nasty witter and thinker.
Nik, you do a great job summarizing the storyline of modernism and postmodernism as it pertains to views of the Bible. What little I know indicates you have connected the dots pretty well.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, however, if the postliberal belief in the unfactuality of the Bible is really just a tenacious vestige of modernism that it has been unable to shake. That may well be the case, but I wonder if their program is as fragmented as that would suggest. Certainly you are right that the quest for depersonalized, universal truth drove the historical critical method (see especially Brueggeman's "Abiding Astonishment"). But maybe the unimportance of factuality to the postliberals is more integrated into their whole approach. I don't know. All I understand about that school is second-hand and secondary.
I think you should do a thesis on these things. Two Questions: under what academic heading could you do such a thesis? Is what we're talking about in this post "systematic theology"? The Trinity people told me that the ST students are the ones who read Frei and Gadamer. Let me know what discipline it is that talks about this stuff...because that's where I want to go. I just wish I could study the Bible more, too, in tandem with that. One would think that this postmodern age would smile on such interdisciplinarity.
Question Two: who would such a thesis help? Is that the wrong question? What bricks nearby to yours would you be supporting by such an undertaking?
I don't know what you are thinking about today, but I would LOVE for you to write something about how the servanthood calling of Jesus affects, changes, drives, demands, excludes, interprets scholarship.
How are you really going to be a servant of all by writing articles and teaching classes? Will it look any different than an upstanding unbeliever in the same role? Tell me how Jesus' strong discipleship teachings in Mark can be lived out in the academic realm. I will be thinking about it, too. I intend to write something up about last night's conversations.
lastly, you need to read Nancy Murphy's "Beyond Fundamentalism and Liberalism." You may find she has written what you intended to write for a thesis...kind of an overview of modernism and then postmodernism, foundationalism and nonfoundationalist paradigms (including MacIntyre) vis-a-vis views of Scripture. This is a short and easy-to-read book which would not require much extra time and would really benefit you in thinking through these things.
As always, I enjoy and appreciate your thoughts, Nik.