FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: By JP Holding

[Trout]

Self-Center: Thoughts on the Self-Esteem Phenomenon

-- James Patrick Holding --
(Tekton Apologetics Ministries)

The impetus for this essay was a book that a reader asked us to check out, titled Christ Esteem by Don Matzat. The book is out of print, and so not reviewable here, but as I read it (and to answer the reader's question, as a whole, I find it quite useful) I find something surprising. Matzat takes us on a Biblical journey in which he refutes the modern desire for "self-esteem" and replaces it with "Christ esteem." What is surprising is how much of what Matzat recommends, corresponds to essentially this advice: Become less like a modern Westerner, and more like an ancient person of the sort that lived in Bible times.

The irony of course is that Matzat, for all his erudition, likely is unaware of the work of the Context Group or other contextual scholars who highlight the vast differences between ancient and modern personality. Not that this is to his discredit, especially since he wrote some years ago (1990) when little of this information was readily available. But we would like to note some of his comments, and in turn indicate how these correspond with the markers of ancient personality, courtesy of Malina and Neyrey's Portraits of Paul. What we will find is that our modern "problems" lie much in our personal psychology (as we noted as well where discipling was concerned).

Matzat observes that as little as 40 years ago, one never heard the self-identity question so common today: "Who am I?" "How can I develop a positive self-identity?" Matzat replies [28]:

The personal identity of the apostle Paul was completely immersed in the person of Jesus Christ...Should not such glorious identity and victorious life meet the needs of this generation?

Compare Matzat's determination of Paul -- correct in essence, if written in modern terms -- to what is offered by Malina and Neyrey about the concept of "embeddedness" [158]:

...[A]ncient Mediterranean people identified and defined themselves as situated and embedded in various other persons with whom they formed a unity of sorts...the individual person shares a virtual identity with the group as a whole and with other members.

Though he almost certainly did not realize it, Matzat has hit the nail on the head. What we as individuals must be TOLD to do, ancient persons did naturally -- seeking an identity in others; in the case at hand, in Christ! In this light Matzat's many admonitions to give up self and identify with Jesus are a return to original Christian social orientation. It seems ironic that Matzat has unerringly directed us to a solution that, for the first Christians (and the majority of those living today, in collectivist societies) was simply the natural thing to do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now we have a look at what the "other side" has to say about the "self-esteem" issue, and how the social science input from Malina and Neyrey affects it. The Secular Web recently posted an item titled "Self-Esteem and Christian Belief" by one Merle Hertzler. Hertzler does not seem to be aware that concern for "self-esteem" is a thoroughly modern, individualist phenomenon; much is also offered in terms of how humanists "achieve" theirs -- by being proud of being at the end of a long evolutionary struggle, apparently. While one might take issue with some of Hertzler's generalizations about the goodness of human nature and the spin placed on human value from a humanist perspective, our purpose will here merely be to relate what Hertzler offers to what the social science data has to say.

Indeed on that count, Hertzler is doing what indeed the ancients did: Turning to an outside source for information about identity, and using that to assign value to humans. In this case, however, it is the natural order in which Hertzler "embeds" himself. On the other hand, quoting Biblical passages that give a lesser value to the individual, as Hertzler does, is itself badly misplaced, for a couple of reasons:

• Statements like Job's ("Wherefore I abhor myself,") could thus by no means reflect any sort of anti-"self-esteem" message. The concept would have been unknown and indeed would have been considered abhorrent by any ancient collectivist. (This is also aside from the literary usages of the period, which means that Job did not so much "abhor" himself as he was expressing what we might call disgust with his personal situation. Hopefully not even Hertzler would exclude realistic assessments of one's situation as "damaging" to "self-esteem"; there is a difference between doing damage and engaging delusion!)
• Statements like Jesus' ("So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.'") likewise are hardly of any relevance here and it is foolish to ask, "That doesn't do much for our self esteem, does it?" Jesus' words reflect the ancient mindset in which every person knew and recognized their place in a hierarchy. Such custom was what kept the ancient world from descending into anarchy. Concerns for "self-esteem" and self-fulfillment would have broken the ancient world apart had they been upon everyone's mind. ("I can't bring the crops in, Father. I'm finding myself!") Nor would anyone have ever thought to little of themselves, to answer Hertzler's questions as to why the Bible contains no warnings against low self-esteem. The interaction of envy, collectivism, and limited good meant that the only danger, ever, was thinking of one's self too much -- not too little. Moreover as Malina notes in The New Testament World [92-3], persons of honor among people in such a society do everything they can to avoid the appearance of presuming on others, lest such be interpreted as trying to get what the other person has; self-deprecation such as the above is in fact the proper way to receive benefaction in an honor and shame setting.
• Hertzler asks, "Do we really need a book to make us feel guilty?" More -- we needed years of introspective development and free time afforded by the Industrial Revolution. Let it be kept in mind that "guilt" and conscience as we know it did not exist in the Biblical world -- and that even today in honor-shame societies, persons who do wrong, and do not get caught at it, will not be subject to remorse. (See comments here.) It is not modern psychology that brought us our concept of self. It is thus foolish to ask, as Hertzler does, why God let us go "centuries" without this message: Even if it were correct in the first place, it has only been "relevant" to any real extent for a century or two, and only in a very small part of the world. Why should God have catered to our unique neurosis?
• On the other hand, the alleged Christian hubris Hertzler sees -- which he attributes to Christian belief that Christ is in them and can do all things -- is itself a modern manifestation that arose from individualism. It could not have emerged in a hierarchical and collectivist society. It is this modernist value -- and the overliteralism of Western fundamentalism -- which created the health and wealth "gospels" which take "all things are yours" to be a blank check -- rather than the comforting assurances laid down in the context of one humbly obedient to God's will that the ancient Judean would have understood.
• And needless to say, Hertzler has an erroneous view of Romans 7.
• Hertzler makes good hay of the practice of Christian psychologists like James Dobson who are on about low self-esteem. By the data above, self-esteem as a concept has only existed for a very few years and would never have been conceived of by 99.9% of people who have ever lived. A better question than any Hertzler asks is, "Is this really such an essential thing to have, since 99.9% of all people in history lived without it?" Is it better to ask whether self-esteem in just a myth and an individualist neurosis -- a "need" created by demand, after the manner of advertising in its beginnings? "Wouldn't it be better simply to change your church doctrine?", Hertzler asks. No -- it would be better to change our mindset. For all of us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now for a third aspect to this essay. A reader alerted us to some quotes from a book titled "The Culture of Narcissism" by one Christopher Lasch. I do not have this book, but from what I have found, getting it might prove most profitable. What I do have are some selected quotes from the book, used in another context by another site in a matter of no specific relevance to this essay. In this book Lasch apparently decried the mutation of America into a culture of narcissists -- caused by the overhauling of the socialization process as Americans pursued individual fulfillment. Rather than being reared by family, for example, children were being reared by more impersonal institutions: schools, the media. He is quoted as saying:

The nature of work takes the father (and today the mother) out of much of childrearing, which falls to schools and day care. (One way narcissism is created is via an upbringing rich in material goods and instant gratification, but with little emotional attachment given by the parents.)

The "reign of childrearing experts" renders the care the parents do give rather neurotic and timid, and deprives it of control and discipline. Parents become terrified that any failure to give in to the child, any reason for the child to be frustrated with them, will somehow ruin the child -- when in fact such frustration is a vital part of maturation and socialization, of learning that the world doesn't owe you, that life is more than making demands, that sometimes we all fail, yet life goes on. Their fear of ruining the child thus ruins the child.

Lasch finds his own solution, apparently, in anti-capitalism; in light of what we have seen, however, capitalism and the rise of the Industrial Revolution was but a piece of ground upon which individualism planted and took root -- the real culprit lies in how the plant has been tended since then.

A couple more comments of relevance here:

• On the "cult of the celebrity": "The media ... intensify narcissistic dreams of fame and glory, encouraging the common man to identify himself with the stars and to hate the 'herd,' and make it more and more difficult for him to accept the comparative banality of everyday existence." Ironically the media would here be encouraging us to trade in collectivist thinking for connection with a remote celebrity whose "ingroup" we can never be a part of.
• "The collapse of personal life originates, not in the spiritual torments of affluence, but in the war of all against all, which is now spreading from the lower class, where it has raged without interruption, to the rest of society." Note how this varies from the ancient perception of each person as having a proper place within a stratified society. On the one hand, we have destroyed the idea that we each have a place and that social mobility is rare if it happens at all; but this has become an extreme caricature of the dream of social equity.

Once again, the irony emerges that certain of modern neuroses appear to be a result of "what's missing" that persons of the Biblical culture would never have had a problem with.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A reader has recently provided us with some relevant insight gleaned from a book newly out by Nancy Pearcey, titled Total Truth, which we are told is about the need for apologetics and developing a Christian worldview, especially in light of post-modern refusal to deal with facts in a consistent way and recognize objective truth. Our reader tells us that Chapter 10, "When America Met Christianity, Guess Who Won?", explains the American individualism which I have in many articles contrasted with biblical and Japanese culture, and traces it back to Jeffersonian as opposed to biblical roots. More shockingly for Christians, Pearcey relates the origins of the "celebrity model" not to Hollywoord (which merely perpetuates what originated elsewhere) but to American revival leaders. As Pearcey says:

Most of all, evangelicalism still produced a celebrity model of leadership —- men who are entrepreneurial and pragmatic, who deliberately manipulate their listerners' emotions, who subtly enhance their own image through self-serving personal anecdotes, whose leadership style within their own congregation or parachurch ministry tends to be imperious and domineering, who calculate success in terms of results, and who are willing to employ the latest secular techniques to boost numbers. ...

Only by recognizing the source of various trends can we craft the tools to correct them. We need to diagnose the way historical patterns continue to shape the way we operate our churches and ministries. History holds up a mirror to the way we think and act today.

In light if this it is little wonder that super-individualized programs like Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven Life are today's church staples, while programs for the corporate good as unknown. Our reader, who is involved in an overseas ministry, notes differences in approach that bear out these observations: American ministries prefer large seminars as opposed to "church-by-church" approaches popular elsewhere.

[jwarrend]

This essay renews several questions for me that I've had for some time but haven't yet had occasion to ask, so now seems as good a time as any. Happily, I believe JP has me on ignore, but I'd be very happy if someone more familiar with the work of the Context Group than I could offer their perspective, if time and inclination permit.

I think it would be hard to argue that the Context Group is doing anything other than performing a very valuable service to those who would seek to understand the Biblical text. Certainly, it can only be helpful to have insights into the cultural backdrop in which the NT is set, as knowing what a classical era-audience would have made of it can inform what we ought to make it. However, JP appears, to me, to make two additional inferences that don't seem to me to be motivated.

The first is this. It seems to me that there is a distinction between "what a Classical Era audience would have made of the text" and "what the true meaning of the text is". However, by the view JP articulates, it seems that it should be impossible to divorce the broader theological point being made by the text from the cultural context in which the text was written.

My concerns with this are twofold. The first is that it has the result of rendering the text imperspicuous. Yet, the perspicuity of Scripture (the idea that its message can be plainly understood) is foundational to Protestantism. To illustrate, consider Psalm 103:13, "As a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him". Taken to an extreme, JP's view seems to require that we could not possibly understand this verse unless we dug into the ANE sociology literature to apprehend what exactly the father-child dynamic was in 1000 BC. I do not imagine JP would go to this extreme, but I'd be curious in how we could go about recognizing which passages of Scripture we are capable of apprehending unaided and which require expert help.

The second concern is that it appears to run the risk of oversimplifying the richness of God and His dealings with us. As an example, perhaps it was reasonable in Paul's day to express the relationship between God and man in terms of the client-patron relationship, since that would provide an easy and convenient model for believers at that time to grasp. But why would that necessitate that such a model exhaustively describe the nature of God's relationship to us, and that there couldn't be more to it?

Put it a different way; everyone knows that contemporary Christianity places a great deal of emphasis on a "personal relationship" with Jesus. The astute reader of the Context Group's writings would presumably point out that a client in the Greco-Roman world would not be on such familiar terms with his patron. Well and good, but how does that imply that such an understanding is erroneous? What if it were the case that the relationship we enjoy with God really is of the "personal relationship" sort; how would the NT writers, lacking the appropriate cultural referrents to grasp such a dynamic, have been able to successfully express this aspect of our interaction with God? Would their inability, in and of itself, render such a dynamic impossible? I don't see the warrant for such a conclusion.

In a sense, then, my first question is an epistemic one; how do we get from "such was the culture of the NT era" to "the truths of God are adequately describable and comprehensible by reference to analogues from the NT era culture"?

The second point flows out of similar considerations. It appears that JP consistently expresses disapproval of modern culture in contrast to the ancient societal model. To be sure, there are no doubt negative consequences of the modern individualistic mindset but it is far from clear to me that this renders our cultural system "worse than" another or indeed, that it's even possible for one system to be worse than another. I don't see how, given that the Bible was written during the Greco-Roman era, that therefore we are to conclude that this represents the ideal societal model and that we should seek to return to those good old days.

It certainly couldn't be argued that God Himself was the author of Greco-Roman social dynamics. If we wanted to claim that there was such a system that God had authored, presumably the closest we could come would be to look to the societal dynamics in the Hebrew society in the years following the Exodus. I know of no one who advocates reverting to that societal model, although of course there are some who attempt to follow the Mosaic law, though applying its directives to the cultural practices of our contemporary society.

I don't dispute that there may be some negative cultural practices to which a given set of mores may be particularly prone, nor do I dispute the possibility that fixation on self-esteem may indeed be negative as the article assumes. However, that doesn't, as far as I can tell, warrant the conclusion that therefore, individualism is negative as compared to collectivism. And at any rate, it certainly doesn't seem possible for Scripture to authorize such a pronouncement, since, if we are to accept the premise of the article, collectivism is a given and individualism was an unknown quantity. We could hardly, then, expect Scripture to pass judgement on the individualist societal model, any more than we could expect a 16th century German author to weigh in on whether 'tis more blessed to be German or American.

Modern industrial society and the individualism that JP contends is attendant is certainly not without its faults, but it is not yet apparent that it is by any means bad-in-itself. It would hardly require terribly much effort at all to enumerate the many ways in which modern Western society has been a boon to the world, not the least in giving us scientific methodology, by which the Context Group's work is made possible in the first place!

Please note that this isn't meant to be an argument or a criticism of the OP so much as the thoughts and reflections that the article and others like it arise for me. Anyone who has grappled with similar questions or is willing and able to do so would be most welcome in response!

-Jeff

[JimboJSR]

I'm not trying to answer for JP, but I'll throw in my 2 cents, if that's ok?

I think it would be hard to argue that the Context Group is doing anything other than performing a very valuable service to those who would seek to understand the Biblical text. Certainly, it can only be helpful to have insights into the cultural backdrop in which the NT is set, as knowing what a classical era-audience would have made of it can inform what we ought to make it.

Absolutely. Having said this, though, I don't understand where your objections below come from...

It seems to me that there is a distinction between "what a Classical Era audience would have made of the text" and "what the true meaning of the text is". However, by the view JP articulates, it seems that it should be impossible to divorce the broader theological point being made by the text from the cultural context in which the text was written.

By understanding "what an Ancient would have made of the text", one is able to find out what an Ancient patient would have meant by saying such a thing. Study of ancient mindsets and the cultural context of the Bible helps enourmously with this.

Taken to an extreme, JP's view seems to require that we could not possibly understand this verse unless we dug into the ANE sociology literature to apprehend what exactly the father-child dynamic was in 1000 BC. I do not imagine JP would go to this extreme, but I'd be curious in how we could go about recognizing which passages of Scripture we are capable of apprehending unaided and which require expert help.

Firstly, this is a non-issue for the majority of people in the world today; living as they are in an group-orientated mentality, they require a great deal less "education" when trying to understand many of the concepts portrayed in the Bible (if missionaries to places like Africa and South America are to be believed).

Secondly, God requires disciples - not folk who want their answers dispensed in a McDonald's fashion. If you're not prepared to do at least a little work, one has to ask how much you truly want it!

Thirdly, you get out what you put in. The basic gospel message is easy to understand - but deeper investigation / study / chewing over will lead to a deeper understanding and rgeater appreciation, just like everything else in the world! I don't see this as being prohibitive to salvation - rather, the one who puts more effort in is rewarded by greater knowledge.

What if it were the case that the relationship we enjoy with God really is of the "personal relationship" sort; how would the NT writers, lacking the appropriate cultural referrents to grasp such a dynamic, have been able to successfully express this aspect of our interaction with God? Would their inability, in and of itself, render such a dynamic impossible? I don't see the warrant for such a conclusion.... It certainly couldn't be argued that God Himself was the author of Greco-Roman social dynamics. If we wanted to claim that there was such a system that God had authored, presumably the closest we could come would be to look to the societal dynamics in the Hebrew society in the years following the Exodus. I know of no one who advocates reverting to that societal model, although of course there are some who attempt to follow the Mosaic law, though applying its directives to the cultural practices of our contemporary society.

Well, one can have a group-orientated society without the toilet habits and poverty of the people of the Exodus!!! I wouldn't say that God authored such social dynamics; rather, that God constructed a framework for salvation which "fitted" with the way that the vast majority of the world's past and future population would be familiar with (and with which ALL off humanity would be at least able to partake in). Bear in mind that group-orientated societies aren't something "weird" and "out there", or even "outdated" - what you're saying sounds a little too much like social snobbery for my liking. (I'm not implying that you think Westerners are better than Hebrews - I'm sure you're a delightful chap - but our way of thinking is not necessarily the "default" for God to use!)

Modern industrial society and the individualism that JP contends is attendant is certainly not without its faults, but it is not yet apparent that it is by any means bad-in-itself. It would hardly require terribly much effort at all to enumerate the many ways in which modern Western society has been a boon to the world, not the least in giving us scientific methodology, by which the Context Group's work is made possible in the first place!

I don't think this is what JP is saying - rather, he is saying that God's grace is delivered in a way which seems unfamiliar to us, and as such, the Church is being damaged by its adherance to a system that simply doesn't exist, and that we are missing a lot of what the Bible has to say to us because we view it through individualist lenses.

Good thoughts - feel free to agree or criticise!

Jsr

[jwarrend]

I'm not trying to answer for JP, but I'll throw in my 2 cents, if that's ok?

Absolutely; I'm glad you did!

By understanding "what an Ancient would have made of the text", one is able to find out what an Ancient patient would have meant by saying such a thing. Study of ancient mindsets and the cultural context of the Bible helps enourmously with this.

I guess the question for me is whether the meaning of the text is exhaustively contained in the author's intent or whether the text, being God-breathed, has a life of its own that exists in some sense independently of the context in which it was written. And whether, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, we are able to apprehend that meaning.

Sticking with my example of Psalm 103, when I read the verse I quoted, I can apprehend the "meaning" of the passage by referring to my own experience as a father, and as such, the passage resonates with me -- I feel that I can understand the analogy that the Psalmist is creating. However, is that a valid way to interpret Scripture, or must we assume that our own experience, being so far removed from the cultural context in which the passage was written, is of no assistance in interpreting the passage? (I will note that I suspect the answer to the question may vary depending on what passage is being considered)

The astute reader will note that there are several questions all bundled together in that one thought, and they include:

-- Is Scripture perspicuous? Can its meaning be plainly apprehended by the reader?

-- Can we rely on the Holy Spirit help us to understand what a passage of Scripture means?

-- To what degree is the human experience universal across cultures and time, and are there particular areas in which this is more likely to be the case?

-- Is it prudent to pin our interpretation of Scripture on the disseminations of the scholarly community, given the inherent dynamism to scholarly findings and the lack of an implied Christian commitment on the part of the members of that community? (yes, I recognize that's a bit of a loaded question)

My view, I suppose, would be to say that yes, digging into the sociology can expand our appreciation for Scripture, can reveal nuances and depths that we would otherwise have missed, and can correct misunderstandings or misreadings. But I'd be concerned with relying more on the scholarly community than on the Holy Spirit as our source for interpretation, given the dramatic difference in reliability we attribute to each!

And pressing the question I asked again, the question for me is how we go from, for example "the relationship between God and man is described in the text as having the characteristics of the client-patron relationship, which was a common social relationship for people in that day" to "ontologically, the relationship between God and man is exhaustively synonomous with the client-patron relationship". Not that anyone even necessarily says something like the latter; it's just a placeholder for the hermeneutic question I'm raising. I hope it makes sense.

Firstly, this is a non-issue for the majority of people in the world today; living as they are in an group-orientated mentality, they require a great deal less "education" when trying to understand many of the concepts portrayed in the Bible (if missionaries to places like Africa and South America are to be believed).

I'm skeptical of this; it's hard for me to imagine that, if we are to accept the contention that Biblical society is so dramatically different from our own that we can barely understand the Scripture without scholarly aid, that nevertheless every collectivist society in history is sufficiently monolithic in mindset that we are the only ones to whom such a concern could be applicable.

Secondly, God requires disciples - not folk who want their answers dispensed in a McDonald's fashion. If you're not prepared to do at least a little work, one has to ask how much you truly want it!

I don't disagree.

Thirdly, you get out what you put in. The basic gospel message is easy to understand - but deeper investigation / study / chewing over will lead to a deeper understanding and rgeater appreciation, just like everything else in the world! I don't see this as being prohibitive to salvation - rather, the one who puts more effort in is rewarded by greater knowledge.

I quite agree. I guess my questions with respect to the piece in question relate more to what is the right kind of study to put in and whether such study can really warrant value judgements about societal dynamics as a whole.

Well, one can have a group-orientated society without the toilet habits and poverty of the people of the Exodus!!! I wouldn't say that God authored such social dynamics; rather, that God constructed a framework for salvation which "fitted" with the way that the vast majority of the world's past and future population would be familiar with (and with which ALL off humanity would be at least able to partake in). Bear in mind that group-orientated societies aren't something "weird" and "out there", or even "outdated" - what you're saying sounds a little too much like social snobbery for my liking. (I'm not implying that you think Westerners are better than Hebrews - I'm sure you're a delightful chap - but our way of thinking is not necessarily the "default" for God to use!)

I'm definitely not saying that "we" are doing things the right way and that "they" are doing things the wrong way; quite the opposite, I'm saying that it's not clear to me that there is a right and wrong with respect to this issue, and that it's not clear that scholarship could require us to conclude that there was. And again, I am skeptical of the degree to which the interpretation of Scripture can be settled simply by reference to group-oriented cultures. I doubt very much that, for example, Israel in the Davidic era and 18th century Japanese culture had terribly much in common. But this is just incredulity on my part, not an actual argument.

I don't think this is what JP is saying - rather, he is saying that God's grace is delivered in a way which seems unfamiliar to us, and as such, the Church is being damaged by its adherance to a system that simply doesn't exist, and that we are missing a lot of what the Bible has to say to us because we view it through individualist lenses.

And I think that's fine, as far as it goes. The points at which I would disagree, however, would be to go father than this and say either "Scripture cannot be viewed through individualist lenses" or "We need to get rid of these individualist lenses and return, societally, to a collectivist outlook".

-Jeff

[damienl]

"Scripture cannot be viewed through individualist lenses"

The gist of Malina's argument is that interpreting scripture with an individualistic mindset will result in misunderstandings. I certainly sympathize with this. However, I am not entirely convinced that all of Malina's insights are equally valid. For instance, I find that his books might be better sourced. I often get the impression that he asks me to swallow uncritically what he says. I would rather like him to quote Anthropologist X or Y in support of some of his claims.

A second `problem' is that it is often used in too absolute a fashion. Thus, collectivists did not `feel' guilt, because Malina/Rorbaugh said they did not. At one point, however, it turns into a form of circular reasoning in which disconfirmatory evidence is rejected out-of-hand. Case in point is JP's treatment of Psalms 51 (http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/abby2.html). Sure, it doesn't say that David *felt* guilty, but JP is willing to admit that he `knew he was guilty', and we can see from the text that he expresses a desire to be cleansed. This is where the analogy with prison inmates break: they *knew* they had done something `wrong' (by society's standards) but didn't care about it. David knows it *and* is repentant.
On the same page, we see that there is another problem with JP's answer to Till:

and as for Ausberger, little Stevie apparently doesn't notice that Augsberger wrote a book about the modern world to assist modern pastors in their counseling efforts in different cultures today. He wasn't saying zip about ancient cultures in this context.

But Malina specifically states in his book (p. xiv) that

The models presented in this book derive for the most part from contemporary Mediterranean anthropologists. Is there any continuity between the Mediterranean world of today and that of the first-century A.D.? [The answer is `yes']

There are also some inconsistencies. Malina ( The New Testament World, p. 60) lists among those who saw in Paul an individualist Augustine and Martin Luther. Both writers lived before the Industrial Revolution, and Augustine is arguably an Ancient Mediterranean person (or at the very least, someone who lived in an agrarian society). Why can he be an individualist, but not Paul?

The last concern I have about some of Malina's writings is the procedure that he sets out: put on collectivist lenses and see if it works (p. 52)... Well, I can put on individualist lenses and, in a way, it `works' too.

As usual, I think we have to be careful before embracing a theory and see a) if the data supports it b) if it is not too absolute, if it doesn't replace one set of blinders by another. Rohrbaugh for instance recognizes that "Both guilt and shame exist in most societies though one response or the other usually dominates", but still feels confident to assert that "reading it [guilt] into ANY biblical text is a serious mistake". Is it not a little inconsistent? Why couldn't we find guilt in a biblical text if it "exist in most societies"? c) how it is accepted by scholars in the field.
I'd be interested in more information regarding a) and c) if some who have done more reading on this topic can point me to some books or articles. I'm particularly looking for a book in which a member of the Context Group shows clearly what their theory is based on (not simply `anthropologists say', `here are the different kinds of culture').

[JimboJSR]

Hey ho, thanks for the thoughtful reply!

guess the question for me is whether the meaning of the text is exhaustively contained in the author's intent or whether the text, being God-breathed, has a life of its own that exists in some sense independently of the context in which it was written. And whether, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, we are able to apprehend that meaning.

Surely both? For apologetic purposes it is always wise to treat the Bible the same as any other document of its time. Whilst it's always a good idea to pray before reading (and ask the Spirit to make the passage "like a two-edged sword"!), God has also given us a very elaborate set of neurons with which we are able to reason. As to an "independent" meaning to the text... I doubt it, as I see no reason to believe it. If God uses humans as his (albeit inerrant) vehicles of his message, one must take the message on the terms of the messenger.

-- Is Scripture perspicuous? Can its meaning be plainly apprehended by the reader?

Yes - when supported by the appropriate supporting structure of knowledge and context. To argue otherwise is to do a "Brooks Trubee" and insist that the text goes into inane detail for the benefit of every single human on earth who would ever need it (and thus the book becomes a library as big as a small town!!!) Then again, even within Scripture, some passages go out their way to provide background information and context (eg. Matthew vs Luke)

-- Can we rely on the Holy Spirit help us to understand what a passage of Scripture means?

Well, different people all say the Spirit guides them, yet they carry different messages But as I said - aren't our own faculties God-given? (when used in an open, honest way of course!)

-- To what degree is the human experience universal across cultures and time, and are there particular areas in which this is more likely to be the case?

Again, from what I've seen, I suspect the majority of societies don't need to re-adgust their lenses the same way we do - but I guess Malina et al know more about that than I do...

-- Is it prudent to pin our interpretation of Scripture on the disseminations of the scholarly community, given the inherent dynamism to scholarly findings and the lack of an implied Christian commitment on the part of the members of that community? (yes, I recognize that's a bit of a loaded question)

Fair point - though I'd say that we're pinning it on evidence rather than scholarship per se. I do appreciate your point - but the advice of the Holy Spirit (or rather, the advice mothed by those who claim to be informed by the Spirit) also varies greatly!

And pressing the question I asked again, the question for me is how we go from, for example "the relationship between God and man is described in the text as having the characteristics of the client-patron relationship, which was a common social relationship for people in that day" to "ontologically, the relationship between God and man is exhaustively synonomous with the client-patron relationship".

I think we're all agreed that the relationship is much, much closer to that of client-patron than "fluffy personal friend". Exhaustive? I don't see any real reason not to think so apart from the fact that it seems unusual to us in 2008!

I'm skeptical of this; it's hard for me to imagine that, if we are to accept the contention that Biblical society is so dramatically different from our own that we can barely understand the Scripture without scholarly aid, that nevertheless every collectivist society in history is sufficiently monolithic in mindset that we are the only ones to whom such a concern could be applicable.

I see what you're saying. Then again, if those "in the know" say that that was the case, there is a alrge burden of proof on the one who says otherwise.

I doubt very much that, for example, Israel in the Davidic era and 18th century Japanese culture had terribly much in common. But this is just incredulity on my part, not an actual argument.

Lol - again, JP has an article which lays out some similarities. There are many differences, to be sure - not least because Japan has had a huge interaction with western culture over the years - but we can still learn some key points.

The points at which I would disagree, however, would be to go father than this and say either "Scripture cannot be viewed through individualist lenses" or "We need to get rid of these individualist lenses and return, societally, to a collectivist outlook".

To be honest, I'm not sure you've provided any reason to disagree with statement 1) above other than your own incredulity, as you put it. If there are inconsistensies in Malina's position, or evidence which contradicts him, then grand - otherwise, I'm afraid I'm not sold. As for statement 2), I don't think anyone is quite claiming that! I do appreciate the points you're making though - I just don't think they are the problem you make them out to be.

Jsr

[jwarrend]

Surely both? For apologetic purposes it is always wise to treat the Bible the same as any other document of its time. Whilst it's always a good idea to pray before reading (and ask the Spirit to make the passage "like a two-edged sword"!), God has also given us a very elaborate set of neurons with which we are able to reason. As to an "independent" meaning to the text... I doubt it, as I see no reason to believe it. If God uses humans as his (albeit inerrant) vehicles of his message, one must take the message on the terms of the messenger.

I agree that God gave us a mind and that we should use it, but to what degree should we trust it? That's the question I'm delving into here. Let me give a simple example to illustrate the phenomenon I'm alleging as possible. Do you think that David, when composing some of the Psalms that we now recognize as Messianic, was necessarily aware of their Messianic implications? Take Psalm 22, for instance. Certainly, we can't retroactively mind-read David and know for certain what was going through his mind; we are forced to draw conclusions only from what he wrote. But to me, it seems at least plausible to say that David was writing a cry of pain out of the depth of agony he was experiencing as a result of his situation, with no thought in mind of the suffering that the Messiah would one day experience, but that because his psalm was inspired by God, the broader implication of the psalm reveals that he was "really" writing about what Christ would experience on the cross. If that were the case (and I grant that it's by no means cut-and-dried), then the actual meaning of the text transcends the author's intent and understanding.

Well, different people all say the Spirit guides them, yet they carry different messages But as I said - aren't our own faculties God-given? (when used in an open, honest way of course!)

I think you're knee-jerking to the defense that intellectuals automatically knee-jerk to; "the Spirit tells people different things, so therefore the Spirit must not be telling anyone anything!" Do you even have actual examples in mind where what you describe above took place, or are you just making a generalization? Listen, I sympathize with this; I am much more of an intellect-driven sort than an emotional, "spiritual" sort. At the same time, I am very reluctant to "debunk" the experiences of fellow believers. If someone says "the Spirit says thus", I'm going to listen to what they say and measure it against Scripture. I'm not going to automatically assume they're fabricating.

Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit's role is to guide us into the truth. Why wouldn't we expect the possibility of divine assistance in understanding Scripture?

I wonder if the real issue isn't something more like this. The conclusions drawn by scholarship have the advantage of being out "in the open"; we can examine the evidence, we can weigh the assumptions that went into the conclusion, we can investigate the sources, and we can make our best guess based on which way we feel the preponderence of evidence points. (I don't necessarily believe that evidence of the sort available to scholarly study ever warrants certitude, but perhaps that's a separate matter) In contrast, there's something "fuzzy" and imprecise about relying on the Spirit to grant us wisdom and insight to understand a passage. It's not clear how its supposed to "work", and it's uncomfortable for those who want to rely on our intellect.

I suppose that from my point of view, the best approach is, as you suggested above, to use both our ability to reason and the illumination of the Spirit. To that end, please note that my response to this point:

Fair point - though I'd say that we're pinning it on evidence rather than scholarship per se. I do appreciate your point - but the advice of the Holy Spirit (or rather, the advice mothed by those who claim to be informed by the Spirit) also varies greatly!

is to observe that I am not talking about uncritically accepting the say-so of someone who claims to be speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit (although I fully grant that this can happen and that when it does it should be followed!), but rather, I'm talking about a case where you believe the Spirit is revealing something to you. What if, for the sake of argument, it disagrees with what sociology scholars say; who is to be believed? I'm not expecting a simple answer, and in a way that's sort of my point; that the JPH view appears, to me, to over-simplify the situation by siding exclusively and inevitably with the scholarly view, whatever it may be, as though there's no possibility of such a conflict arising or presenting any difficulty. I think that perhaps gives the Spirit too little credit.

I think we're all agreed that the relationship is much, much closer to that of client-patron than "fluffy personal friend". Exhaustive? I don't see any real reason not to think so apart from the fact that it seems unusual to us in 2008!

I agree with the former to an extent although I'd dispute that those are the only two options. I would contend that it has aspects of that relationship but that it also has aspects of the father-son relationship, and perhaps a few others besides; in other words, that it's richer than "just" the client-patron relationship. But again, keep in mind that the client-patron relationship is simply a placeholder in my argument. But with that in mind, the point I'm trying to question is whether, given that we could say that (a) "in the NT era, X, Y and Z were aspects of the client-patron relationship and A, B and C were not aspects of the client patron relationship", and (b) "Scripture uses descriptive language that draws an analogy between the client-patron relationship and the relationship between God and man", that therefore, we could conclude that (c) "X, Y and Z are aspects of the relationship between God and man and A, B, and C are not aspects of the relationship between God and man".

Does my question make sense? What I'm asking, I think, is how we recognize how tightly a given analogy holds; how we know whether (a) and (b) lead inescapably to (c). I think this becomes important insofar as it informs the way we will read other passages of Scripture. If, for example, we believed that elsewhere, Scripture does appear to teach that "B is an aspect of the relationship between God and man", would we be justified in saying "but that reading must be wrong, because we know based on (a) that B wasn't an aspect of the client-patron relationship in Greco-Roman society"?

To be honest, I'm not sure you've provided any reason to disagree with statement 1) above other than your own incredulity, as you put it. If there are inconsistensies in Malina's position, or evidence which contradicts him, then grand - otherwise, I'm afraid I'm not sold.

Don't misunderstand -- I'm not advancing the view that statement 1 is false, I'm asking for the argument that motivates accepting it as true. I respect Malina's credentials but "scholars say" is rarely sufficient justification for me to accept something as settled truth.

As for statement 2), I don't think anyone is quite claiming that!

Well, I'm not sure I agree with you; I think that there's more than a subtle undercurrent of such a sentiment that pervades JP's work. But if it's not a view that you espouse, I certainly wouldn't ask you to defend it.

I appreciate the thoughtful reply!

Best,
-Jeff

[jpholding]

I see from the quotes that jwarrend is up to his usual postmodern gyrations.

For instance, I find that his books might be better sourced

Which ones? They seem fine to me depending on their target audiences.

A second `problem' is that it is often used in too absolute a fashion. Thus, collectivists did not `feel' guilt, because Malina/Rorbaugh said they did not. At one point, however, it turns into a form of circular reasoning in which disconfirmatory evidence is rejected out-of-hand. Case in point is JP's treatment of Psalms 51 (http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/abby2.html). Sure, it doesn't say that David *felt* guilty, but JP is willing to admit that he `knew he was guilty', and we can see from the text that he expresses a desire to be cleansed.

You're confusing recognition of legal guilt with the feeling of guilt. David would of course want to be cleansed of legal guiilt.

On the same page, we see that there is another problem with JP's answer to Till:

But Malina specifically states in his book (p. xiv) that

What exactly is the problem here?


[quote[There are also some inconsistencies. Malina ( The New Testament World, p. 60) lists among those who saw in Paul an individualist Augustine and Martin Luther.[/quote]

I don't see that from this quote on page 60. Can you explain? It looks to me like he's saying they caught hints of conscience as we know it, not individualism. That wouldn't be a surprise in Augustine since he would have had the time to do introspection. Luther, the same. It is in the people who had time for introspection that we see the first hints of conscience -- even the the ancient world.

The last concern I have about some of Malina's writings is the procedure that he sets out: put on collectivist lenses and see if it works (p. 52)... Well, I can put on individualist lenses and, in a way, it `works' too.

That is far from all there is to it. He tells people to read the book, not merely "put on collectivist lenses."

And as to that, what of that persons from those sorts of socieities have written to me to affirm what Malina and the others say?

Rohrbaugh for instance recognizes that "Both guilt and shame exist in most societies though one response or the other usually dominates", but still feels confident to assert that "reading it [guilt] into ANY biblical text is a serious mistake". Is it not a little inconsistent?

No, because 1) he said "most," not all; 2) his point would still be that if shame was dominant, you have to explain any deviant reading of guilt into a text.

I'd be interested in more information regarding a) and c) if some who have done more reading on this topic can point me to some books or articles. I'm particularly looking for a book in which a member of the Context Group shows clearly what their theory is based on (not simply `anthropologists say', `here are the different kinds of culture').

I have done more reading. And if "anthropologists say" and examples are out, what's left to show what a theory is based on, exactly?

[jwarrend]

I see from the quotes that jwarrend is up to his usual postmodern gyrations.

The eloquence of expression and depth of insight wrapped up in this observation leave me unable to do other than provide pearls to the font of wisdom from which such an apt and helpful comment originated!

-Jeff

[historic salve]

The gist of Malina's argument is that interpreting scripture with an individualistic mindset will result in misunderstandings. I certainly sympathize with this. However, I am not entirely convinced that all of Malina's insights are equally valid. For instance, I find that his books might be better sourced. I often get the impression that he asks me to swallow uncritically what he says. I would rather like him to quote Anthropologist X or Y in support of some of his claims.

This is the only thing in your post I could say I agreed with. On the whole, Malina's research (and that of the rest of the Context Group) is invaluable. However (at least from the one book Malina has coauthored that I've read), Malina seems to lack proper citation when he ventures outside of his specialization. For instance, in Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, he assumes a level of ethnocentrism on Paul's part (and even more pronounced on the part of the other Apostles) that meant Paul was "unconcerned" with the salvation of non-Israelites. He rightly perceives that God will not use the Jews in the end times, but assumes that "Zionism" is the problem for this misreading and that modern-day "Jews" are not genetically linked to first-century Judeans (8-9). He dismisses "all nations" in Matt 28:16 as "meaning, of course, 'of Israelites living among the nations'" with no further explanation (17). He seems to assume that Paul takes the term kingdom of God too literally. That is to say, he seems to think that Paul thinks it's a theocracy (32-33). He merely assumes that Paul's vision of Jesus was a trance, in the same order as Peter's vision of God declaring all food clean (332).

On a side note, his book is also lacking an index, which is frustrating for me when I want to go back and find information.

[OldManZangetsu]

I'll just make a quick comment (relatively speaking) about a few things.

My concerns with this are twofold. The first is that it has the result of rendering the text imperspicuous. Yet, the perspicuity of Scripture (the idea that its message can be plainly understood) is foundational to Protestantism.

Could you quote something? I have a feeling there is more to it than that.

To illustrate, consider Psalm 103:13, "As a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him". Taken to an extreme, JP's view seems to require that we could not possibly understand this verse unless we dug into the ANE sociology literature to apprehend what exactly the father-child dynamic was in 1000 BC. I do not imagine JP would go to this extreme, but I'd be curious in how we could go about recognizing which passages of Scripture we are capable of apprehending unaided and which require expert help.

I think it would help to render everything you're saying under a paradigm and compare it to the paradigm of the student-teacher (and this paradigm makes more sense if you understand developmental psychology as it pertains to learning). Quite clearly the scholarly crowd are the teachers, and the less informed are the students. As a child grows, they encounter new topics that at first are difficult to grasp, but once they master the basics, future topics that are similar or more complex are easier to learn. For example: expecting a child to solve an algebraic problem is ridiculous unless that child has already mastered basic math (addition, multiplication, etc.) AND understands the notion of BALANCE (which I think might be related to science, and not necessarily math); i.e. 1+X=2, what is X? Well, subtract one from both sides (balance) and you get X=1.

So as it relates to your question of "which passages of Scripture we are capable of apprehending unaided and which require expert help," I respond by saying: depends on the ground work. If the ground work isn't "an upbringing in a society that shares similar or same viewpoints," then one undoubtedly needs to study that culture and the language in order to properly understand what they are saying. The scholars are nothing more than teachers who help us see the (theological) world around us, just as regular teachers help students learn the basics of what is required to be a properly functioning member of an industrialized society. We COULD learn these things ourselves, but it is much more difficult without the "corrective lenses" of teachers/scholars. More often than not people will learn things incorrectly if not given instruction, which I have personally encountered in dealing with young violin students.

The second concern is that it appears to run the risk of oversimplifying the richness of God and His dealings with us. As an example, perhaps it was reasonable in Paul's day to express the relationship between God and man in terms of the client-patron relationship, since that would provide an easy and convenient model for believers at that time to grasp. But why would that necessitate that such a model exhaustively describe the nature of God's relationship to us, and that there couldn't be more to it?

Put it a different way; everyone knows that contemporary Christianity places a great deal of emphasis on a "personal relationship" with Jesus. The astute reader of the Context Group's writings would presumably point out that a client in the Greco-Roman world would not be on such familiar terms with his patron. Well and good, but how does that imply that such an understanding is erroneous? What if it were the case that the relationship we enjoy with God really is of the "personal relationship" sort; how would the NT writers, lacking the appropriate cultural referrents to grasp such a dynamic, have been able to successfully express this aspect of our interaction with God? Would their inability, in and of itself, render such a dynamic impossible? I don't see the warrant for such a conclusion.

Given what I wrote above, I think it is possible to come to these conclusions without help, (after all, how did the scholars do it?) but again, it is more difficult. I would argue that no where in the Bible is anyone ever really "chums" with God. The closest we might have is Moses, but he is always displaying a very reverent attitude. Even in prayers we see that usually the first thing to pop up before anything else is a recognition of who God is, which would normally be (in the prayers) just, holy, etc. Very praising, not something we would normally do for/to a personal friend.

So here, as it regards the student-teacher paradigm, I didn't notice this until I started encountering "scholarly works" because I was never taught (or perhaps I just never bothered to apply this notion to reading the Bible, because I was taught a sort of hyper-spiritualized method of reading the Bible, i.e. pick out a verse here and there) how to gather multiple instances of something and compare them all to find patterns. So my "ground work" here would have been this comparison strategy, but my ground work wasn't set or set very well. At the point of discovering a conflict between the modern reading of certain verses and what I have discovered through these comparisons, I know that something is up and I need to find someone else who has "tread through the muck" before me (that is, if I am unable to draw a final conclusion that is satisfactory to myself).

Also, I don't think you meant any of this in an Obsessive Compulsive Panic manner, but there seems to be the implication that without the help of scholarly reference things are misunderstood to the point of being heresy. I don't think this is always the case. With the example of our relationship to God, the view of God as a buddy and we being in a personal relationship with him isn't necessarily as heretical as viewing God as a pagan idol (gumball machine, as JP might put it), because even within this ideology there is the understanding that God is ultimately in charge and has the final say so. I believe, given the Corinthian passage about meat, there is an allowance for people not "ready to step out onto the sheet of thick ice they think is really thin ice," but that we should also have the understanding that not only is their sanctification needed to be happening in our spiritual walk, but also in our mental walk (which has a direct influence on our spiritual walk as well). Correct me if I'm mistaken.

If any of that makes sense... not sure how to organize my thoughts there, sorry.

I'm definitely not saying that "we" are doing things the right way and that "they" are doing things the wrong way; quite the opposite, I'm saying that it's not clear to me that there is a right and wrong with respect to this issue, and that it's not clear that scholarship could require us to conclude that there was. And again, I am skeptical of the degree to which the interpretation of Scripture can be settled simply by reference to group-oriented cultures.

Lastly I'll just note that: they wrote it, so we should adopt their understanding of it, since their words (and also their way of thinking, implicitly) are what got the "Final Source of Authority" stamp on it. While the lines may not be as black and white as, "this ideology is heretical" in all instances, it certainly helps to view things from the right lenses.

[jwarrend]

Good points, OMZ. I'll reply to a couple of the points you raised.

Could you quote something? I have a feeling there is more to it than that.

Do you mean more to the doctrine of perspicuity? Yes, of course; I was deliberately over-simplifying for the sake of brevity. A google search will reveal a lot of hits, but here's one link to a brief article at "Theopedia.com": http://www.theopedia.com/Perspicuity

Briefly, the notion of Scripture being perspicuous doesn't mean that everything is transparent even upon cursory inspection, or that careful study isn't warranted or required. Rather, the implication is that there is no need for an infallible interpreter; that Scripture can and should be read and apprehended by all believers. Obviously, this doctrine stood in contrast to the view of the Church, which took the view that only the Church could be entrusted to handle sacred Scripture. Obviously, this too is a bit of an oversimplification; it's easy to access more information about this if it's something that interests you.

Quite clearly the scholarly crowd are the teachers, and the less informed are the students.

Ah, but here's the point that I, to some extent, dispute. Yes, clearly, scholars of classical era sociology are teachers and their insights can assist us in our own understanding, and therefore we should avail ourselves of their instruction and erudition. I have absolutely no dispute there. However, are they the only teachers we should be listening to, or the best? I would suggest that we have other potential teachers -- the Holy Spirit, church tradition, the leadership in our local churches, our families, and common sense, to name a few. We don't assign the same level of reliability to all of these and should therefore presumably not give them all equal weight, but neither would it seem to me to be prudent to allow sociology scholars to carry the full burden of blessing our beliefs as legitimate or not. Neither is it clear that, should a conflict arise between the disseminations of sociologists and of one of these other teachers, that the scholars are the ones that we should automatically side with.

I would argue that no where in the Bible is anyone ever really "chums" with God. The closest we might have is Moses, but he is always displaying a very reverent attitude. Even in prayers we see that usually the first thing to pop up before anything else is a recognition of who God is, which would normally be (in the prayers) just, holy, etc. Very praising, not something we would normally do for/to a personal friend.

I must start my restating two caveats; the first and most important is that the issue of a "personal relationship/ client-patron relationship" is something I'm using merely as a placeholder to raise a broader question about how we draw conclusions about Scripture from sociologists. The second is that I am emphatically not saying that the Bible teaches that we should be "buddy-buddy" with Jesus or anything like that.

With respect to the former point, I said to JimboJSR:

"...the point I'm trying to question is whether, given that we could say that (a) "in the NT era, X, Y and Z were aspects of the client-patron relationship and A, B and C were not aspects of the client patron relationship", and (b) "Scripture uses descriptive language that draws an analogy between the client-patron relationship and the relationship between God and man", that therefore, we could conclude that (c) "X, Y and Z are aspects of the relationship between God and man and A, B, and C are not aspects of the relationship between God and man".

Does my question make sense? What I'm asking, I think, is how we recognize how tightly a given analogy holds; how we know whether (a) and (b) lead inescapably to (c). I think this becomes important insofar as it informs the way we will read other passages of Scripture. If, for example, we believed that elsewhere, Scripture does appear to teach that "B is an aspect of the relationship between God and man", would we be justified in saying "but that reading must be wrong, because we know based on (a) that B wasn't an aspect of the client-patron relationship in Greco-Roman society"? "

He didn't respond but you're welcome to do soif you find the question interesting.

At the point of discovering a conflict between the modern reading of certain verses and what I have discovered through these comparisons, I know that something is up and I need to find someone else who has "tread through the muck" before me (that is, if I am unable to draw a final conclusion that is satisfactory to myself).

Sure thing; of course it's prudent to seek guidance from those more knowledgable than ourselves. I don't think anyone is advocating that we should be acting as lone rangers.

Also, I don't think you meant any of this in an Obsessive Compulsive Panic manner, but there seems to be the implication that without the help of scholarly reference things are misunderstood to the point of being heresy.

Not sure I follow; are you saying that I am claiming that this is the case, or that I am attributing such a view to proponents of the view expressed by the OP?

I believe, given the Corinthian passage about meat, there is an allowance for people not "ready to step out onto the sheet of thick ice they think is really thin ice," but that we should also have the understanding that not only is their sanctification needed to be happening in our spiritual walk, but also in our mental walk (which has a direct influence on our spiritual walk as well). Correct me if I'm mistaken.

No, I think you're right, there's absolutely the expectation that part of our spiritual growth should include intellectual growth, and that this is something we should pursue. But the question is, what is the right way to go about doing that? Amusingly, the same argument that would claim that the Bible can't be read correctly by an individualistic society could at some level be leveraged to reject appeals to scholarly findings, insofar as the scientific method is a modern innovation! Of course, this is a bit of an exaggeration -- there are presumably analogies that one can apply, but I would instead suggest that we consider the question, what is the method that Scripture prescribes for acquiring wisdom? David, for example, speaks repeatedly in the Psalms about meditating on God's law and imploring God to teach him or provide wisdom to him.

Yes, I know, I know. "David was embedded in a collectivist society and wouldn't have required the re-orientation that we individualists need to understand God's word". I don't think this invalidates the broader point, though.

Lastly I'll just note that: they wrote it, so we should adopt their understanding of it, since their words (and also their way of thinking, implicitly) are what got the "Final Source of Authority" stamp on it. While the lines may not be as black and white as, "this ideology is heretical" in all instances, it certainly helps to view things from the right lenses.

I have to nitpick this a bit. Presumably, we can agree that we should adopt God's understand of the text. So, for what you say above to be true, we have to be certain that the authors were fully cognizant of the meaning of the texts that they were writing. Yet, as I argued in an earlier post with respect to Psalm 22, it's plausible that this might not always necessarily have been the case -- can we be sure that David "knew" his words prefigured Christ's suffering on the cross? I would speculate that there's probably a continuum and it probably varies by genre; I would suspect it's more likely that a writer of one of the more historical works, such as the Gospels or the OT histories, probably understood what he was writing than, for example, one of the prophets or John in writing Revelation, who may not have understood the "actual" meaning of their words.

So I think that's something we'd have to worry about a bit, and of course people have done just that. And so the second issue with what you say is whether we can access the author's understanding of their text. And of course, it all comes back to what the best method for doing that is. Certainly, understanding their society has to be very helpful, but knowing "what the author meant" is, I claim, something separate, just as a modern literary critic, though embedded in the same societal framework as me, won't automatically draw correct conclusions about my writing simply by virtue of our cultural overlap. (There's a great chapter by CS Lewis in NETDV that addresses this very point).

I appreciate the discussion. I hope I've clarified my questions and concerns somewhat.

Best,

Jeff

[Mountain Man]

What if it were the case that the relationship we enjoy with God really is of the "personal relationship" sort; how would the NT writers, lacking the appropriate cultural referrents to grasp such a dynamic, have been able to successfully express this aspect of our interaction with God?

You really think the ancients knew nothing of personal relationships?

[jwarrend]

Come on, MM, that's a cop out. You know that we are perfectly capable of having a polite and reasoned conversation. Why wheel out the scorn machine?

-Jeff

[Mountain Man]

Drop the victim mentality and answer the question: Do you really think the ancients were incapable of describing or understanding the nuances of a personal relationship?