[Home]AngelaRaynerNotesInProgress/NormanSolomon-PoliticalImplicationsOfTheBeliefInRevelation-HeythropJournal1984

ec2-44-212-39-149.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | AngelaRaynerNotesInProgress | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic

p129

Political Implications ot the belief in revelation:

What is revelation?

Revelation used in broard and narrow sense.  In broad sense, may be applied to any experience which brings enlightenment.

Here we're concerned w/ narrow sense - term applied to specific body of literature believed to emanate (whether strictly verbally or not) from God and constitute His guidance for mankind.

But tho Scripts are correctly referred to as "revelation" or Word of God, two further eleents incorporated by main 3 religions into working concept of revelation:

1.  Supplementary material. 

Necessary when describing what Jews have regarded as God's revelation to list not only sacred texts themselves, but the "information" handed down for their understanding. 

Xian response to Hb and Gk scripts is conditioned by acceptance of "information" not state in scripts themselves; notions about divinity of J. or nature of trinity which are not explicit there, and w/ a concept of relat. between Hb and Gk scrips. which wd lead him to see Hb as preparation for and prefiguring of the Gk.

2.  Conventions regarding use and interp. of holy writings

Trad. Xian does not arrogate to self the right to inrepret scrip. as he will, but approaches it w/ knowledge of and respect for weight of (C) teaching in post-scriptural times.

Second element lead to schisms - tradition tends to be seen as sep. from or opposed to scripture and this leads to rise of @back to the original sources@ movements which pretend to throw aside all trad. interp. and receive guidance direct from Word of God.  Long term result if creation of new trad. of interp.

The Nature of Scriptural Authority

{He lists 5 different types of believing in Scripture, briefly:
1.  inerrant down to the shape of the letters
2.  inerrent, verbal inspiration not implying "literal" truth (he characterises this as "normal" belief of faith Jews, Xians and Muslims
3.  non-verbal inspiration
4.  Not so much the written texts that matter, but events it records and interp. it offers of them.
5.  Not belief in historical event, but the myth it enshrines (Bultmann).

Type of belief affect how one reasons from scripture to a theory or decision.  The more verbal one's concept, the more inerrant the text, and more one will express beliefs in scriptural terms.  Qn still remains: "what is the actual logic of inferences made from scripture to contemporary reality?" p133.  It is fundamentalist who is most likely to be dominted by particular trad.  The demythologiser is forced to substitute his own more concrete language for what he takses as mythological language of scripture.

p133

Arguing from general to particular:

Example of "all men are mortal" syllogism.

This conditional statement is true even if there is Eternal Life or it runs out that Socrates is really an angel in guise of a man.

"As soon as one attempts to apply the perfection of formal logic to the vagaries of the real world one comes up with doubts, not as to the validity of the formal argument, but as to its applicability to the case in hand." p133-4

{Note to self -  This is the way that I'm going to criticise Von-B's construction of Mary.  I'm going to attempt to force a metaphorical to literal distinction, and show why such thinking doesn't work.  I will then question the applicability to the case in hand.  I think this approach by Solomon is very similar to the cult-ling. approach of Lindbeck... I wonder if I can draw parallels.}

p134

Solomon gives example (from Jewish perspective).


Rabbi Josh has done something more significant than clarify course of Ammonite history, he has substituted for racist law of Deuteronomy a new, universal law which doesn't discriminate between nations.

There's no room for doubt that both believed in verbal inspiration and inerrancy and both shared interpreative conventions of rabbis of their time.  How did they come to differ?

The appearance of logicality in deriving their decisions is deceptive.  An argument may be formally valid, but no guarantee of its applicability. 

Even in simplest case of argument from general statement to particular instance, one has to establish:

(a) the essential features of the general principle
(b) that the particuar instance shares the essential features of the general rule.

This is logically necessary, not merely useful.

So three great religs. sought to limit freedom of interp. and look for guarantees that authorised interps were correct. 

"What are the assumptions in the light of which the Holy Spirit guides us, or consensus is reached?  Often, in unravelling these assumptions, we will discover the ethical, philosophical or metaphysical matrix within which the words of scripture have been made to yield the harvest of a particular era." p136

The construction of theories:

Much of political writings of theologians is, on a general level.  It concerns principles of government, rather than specific decisions.  It proceeds from particular to general.  David/Jesus?/Mohamed? acted thus... does their behaviour illustrate some general principle?  Is this instance of behaviour to be followed or is it exception to norm?  Even if example, how can we be sure what it is intended to exemplify?

Institution of slavery taken for granted in Hb scriptures and Quran, and all 3 religs have maintained its legitimacy, and some argued in its favour, yet todayt, theologs denounce slavery, but adduce scriptural proofs that it's undesirable. 

"The status of women in society has occasioned a similar volte-face amongst religious teachers, and once again scriptural verses are discoverd or reinterpreted in accorance with the new ideas, though in this instance it must be conceded that the Jewish halakha and Moslem shari'a, with their precisely formulated legislation, have proved less tractable than scriptural texts." p137

Where general politial theories are concerned, it is bkground martix of political and social assumptions that determines way inferences are made from scripture.  How can some Xians learn pacifism from life of Jesus and others the theology of Revolution?  In all instances, issues handled are not really subject of Scrip... none of scripts conceives of socialist or capitalist system or aeroplanes or computers.  And anyway, we can easily provide egs. of slavery or status of women where there was no lack of vocab.  Here we wd have to consider, not availability of words, but that of "historically conceivable discourse"; at any time, there is limit to demands for change which can be made on society, and beyond that limit, the society wd be destroyed.

p140

Contemporary relevance

However firmly one may hold belief in perfection and inerrancy of Scripture, it is not logically possible to make valid inferences from scriptural texts either as to specific deicsions or for construction of general theories.  Whenver someone appears to be doing this, she is utilising historical, philosophical or other assumptions to validate her inference.

ec2-44-212-39-149.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | AngelaRaynerNotesInProgress | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic
Edit this page | View other revisions | Recently used referrers
Last edited July 19, 2004 2:47 pm (viewing revision 1, which is the newest) (diff)
Search: