tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22356730.post3525327083119130680..comments2023-10-29T20:50:33.666-04:00Comments on hyperekperissou: Joshua and the Promised LandPhil Sniderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08944477827816680359noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22356730.post-69370227002775608872009-07-27T16:54:36.095-04:002009-07-27T16:54:36.095-04:00Muareen,
I see some problems here. Primary is th...Muareen,<br /><br />I see some problems here. Primary is the assumption that we are supposed to be, "... finding anagogical readings of their own life events" -- a considerable stretch. <br /><br />Jesus told us three things: "A new command I give you to love one another;" "Do this to bring me to you" and "Whenever you have done these things for the least of these you have done them for me." Not a lot of "finding anagogical readings of their own life events" there.<br /><br />Jesus was not Buddha. He did not tell us to contemplate he called us to do things.<br /><br />So I have some real issues with your initial premise. And in that context I have to say I do not think it "silly" to question how far an "interpretative framework" can go.<br /><br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22356730.post-86263132308243505162009-07-25T00:48:46.741-04:002009-07-25T00:48:46.741-04:00Given that both Jews and Christians are supposed t...Given that both Jews and Christians are supposed to spend a great deal of time finding anagogical readings of their own life events, it seems a bit silly to cavil at reading the OT that way. Especially when Christians were instructed to do so, on the road to Emmaus.<br /><br />Even in a strictly literary POV, it's a matter of ignoring what is not a bug, but a feature of the Bible's literary style. Later authors clearly want you to read later references into earlier ones; this clearly gives permission for still later authors to do the same. <br /><br />Or you could see the Bible as a sort of literary Wikipedia, constantly discussed, constantly linking back and forth, the visible record of a much greater set of cultural comments and events and ideas in which it swims....Bansheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12594214770417497135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22356730.post-30037540868467858852009-07-24T08:54:56.247-04:002009-07-24T08:54:56.247-04:00One of the good things about adopting the revised ...One of the good things about adopting the revised common reactionary in TEC has been the reading of larger and more coherent sections of the Hebrew Scriptures. I agree with your characterization of many of our fellow Christians. <br /><br />I certainly am open to not reading literally. It is more a rather nuanced question of how far we can go away from the author's intent. Joshua was not written for Christians, its intent I think, was to preserve the historical mythic stories of Israel's relationship with the one god. Even given the ability of the Spirit to take both author and reader beyond their immediate context, there is a point I think, of danger.<br /><br />Enjoy the unpacking. I am off to the hospital where Sue-z is going to be in surgery briefly today. Thanks for your concern.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22356730.post-9359676246877543772009-07-23T19:52:41.190-04:002009-07-23T19:52:41.190-04:00Hi Jim;
I think we are in agreement about the im...Hi Jim; <br /><br />I think we are in agreement about the importance of the Hebrew Testament here, but we're really only disagreeing on one particular way to make the connection. I don't claim that my suggestion works for everyone nor that it will satisfy me forever. I'm rather uncertain on my feet about this particular style of exegesis, even if I see its importance. <br /><br />I think this particular problem is particularly acute because of the lack of clarity that we as a Church have about the relationship of the Hebrew Testament. I think you know as well as I that many modern Christians are functional Marcianites; so scandalized by the Hebrew Testaments that they mentally edit it out of the canon. I think that a very dangerous trend because it de-incarnates God's involvement in history and put the Incarnation at threat. I hope this makes sense. <br /><br />Don't pay too much attention to my 'relentlessly historical' comment. I suspect I may have said it more because of its sound than the degree of truth behind it. I know that you remain open to non-literal/historical readings, so it was perhaps a little unfair to apply the term to you. Mind you, I do think that the prevailing model of biblical exegesis is probably 'relentlessly historical' which has its advantages, but is not, perhaps, as deep as we can go. <br /><br />Anyways, I must sign off and finish off a few lurking packing and cleaning items around the apartment. I'll probably be off-line for a day or two as we move. <br /><br />Peace, <br />Phil<br /><br />P.S. I'm still praying for you and Sue-z.Phil Sniderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08944477827816680359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22356730.post-91383903410184290552009-07-23T14:48:35.391-04:002009-07-23T14:48:35.391-04:00Phil,
+N. T. Wright (no progressive he!) in his w...Phil,<br /><br />+N. T. Wright (no progressive he!) in his work on parables and his 'Christian Origins' series proposes that Jesus was about the business of inviting the gentiles into a reformed Israel. If that is true, and I think he makes a case, then being 'better Jews' is precisely our calling. <br /><br />In a sense, I suppose my view is that our spiritual journey is towards being the new Israel. If that (rather traditional for a lefty :-) view leads to being a better sort of Jewish believer OK. I am not sure I rate that designation but I am working on things.<br /><br />The Hebrew Scriptures were less assembled than accepted by the compilers of the Bible canon. In fact some of the movement from OT to Apocrypha between RC, Anglican and Protestant canons arose from developing Jewish categorization. <br /><br />I shall think on my 'relentless historical' perspective a bit. It is not the least bit unlikely that I have missed something thereby.<br /><br />In fact, the whole idea of an anagogical reading is interesting to me. I see the roots from which you reach the idea, but I am not sure they are where I can follow. I wonder for instance if Christian scholars including the patristics would have landed there absent the anti-Christian persecutions which first and second century Jews abetted in the empire. I shall think on the idea.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22356730.post-75083851830096473442009-07-17T16:29:18.019-04:002009-07-17T16:29:18.019-04:00Hi Jim;
Well, you made me smile with your respon...Hi Jim; <br /><br />Well, you made me smile with your response. I know how relentlessly historical you are, so I'm not surprised at your response. <br /><br />Still, the point in the exercise was to look for application of the exegesis to our daily life and the worry I have about only a historical method is that it suggests that there is little to apply. This is why, I think, the historical aspect of texts is placed within the literal level and that the 'spiritual' readings (the other three sense of scripture) are privileged. <br /><br />Further, what struck me about the anagogical meaning was how it really was where the reading the OT through the NT came into full force. That, I think, may be the force of the eisegesis. If so, I'm comfortable with that. Unless you're suggesting that my own theological position today is interfering with the application of this passage. Perhaps, but something I need to meditate on a bit further. <br /><br />Yet, I think we have to remain sensitive to the historical context of the Hebrew writings and to the original sense of the genre, but I don't think we can stay there. If we did, we would, perhaps, be better Jews, but I still don't know how we'd are supposed to read this passage as a Christian. I think it is this dillemma which plagues us as modern Christians because we don't want to avoid the original sense of the OT, but we are compelled to, if we expect to read it as a Christian. <br /><br />Anyway, you've given me a fair amount to think about. <br /><br />Peace, <br />PhilPhil Sniderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08944477827816680359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22356730.post-80808710114606483072009-07-17T14:10:19.586-04:002009-07-17T14:10:19.586-04:00I was pretty much with you right up to:
This last...I was pretty much with you right up to:<br /><br /><i>This last point, of course, links us to the anagogical meaning of this passage. If we accept that the Promised Land is the resurrected life, we, also, find ourselves discussing how does one achieve spiritual salvation.</i><br /><br />Here I think you risk a leap from exegesis to eisegesis. Joshua seems to me written to record a series of stories the Hebrew people told themselves about their history and how they came to be in possession at one time of Palestine. Imputing a theological concepts of salvation theory on an ancient folk writer is at best risky.<br /><br />Yes Hebrew history was written in part to explain the evolving relationship with God. But I think you made a bit of a leap here.<br /><br />Not that the rest is bad, or that I am right. ;-) As my friend Fr. Jon says (frequently to the despair of English conservatives) I could be wrong.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.com