tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17523996.post5331841703415699056..comments2023-04-17T21:50:13.120+10:00Comments on The Batcave: Revisiting HellenismGlen O'Brienhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17220895739530164962noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17523996.post-73010785410009553742009-08-20T20:10:53.776+10:002009-08-20T20:10:53.776+10:00Glen, Alan,
I have difficulty with Alan's use...Glen, Alan,<br /><br />I have difficulty with Alan's use of the term "from an Hebraic worldview". From a "biblical worldview" OK but the term "from an Hebraic worldview" is offering something else. <br /><br />The bible was written in Hebrew but the worldview comes from revelation given and transmitted in the Hebrew language but also communicable into other languages. The difficulty I have with Alan's/Mike's statements are these:<br />Muslims claim you have to understand the Koran in Arabic else you do not understand it. Are Alan and Mike in some way saying that there is no way we can translate the bible and give an understanding of the biblical worldview.<br /><br />Secondly the Jews who had the Scripture of the Hebrew texts had worldviews that were in the Hebrew language but were radically denounced by the prophets - what do Alan and Mike do with that. Do they accept them as Hebraic - they were communicated by ancient Hebrews to each other and were unacceptable. So there is a difference between a biblical worldview and worldviews (multiple) which were found among Hebrew speaking people at the time the Scriptures relate to.<br /><br />The New Testament was written in Greek. In fact many of the references used in it were taken from the Septugintal translation of the Jewish Scriptures(not the Hebrew text) as Septuagintal scholarship in the last 50 years is showing.<br /><br />The use of Greek in the first five hundred years of church history was important for the development of doctrine. The language of Trinity had to be worked out to avoid Tritheism - an anathema to a devout Jew. This happened within the context of Greek language wherein the biblical revelation was worked over and over and over to help us understand for example how God could be one but three persons...<br /><br />The debates of the first 500 years of church history are not minor. The language of personhood that we have in the Western world grew up out of the Trinitarian discussions of the Cappadocians in the 5th century. The word "person" actually arose from those debates. <br /><br />To see the discussion of the early church as "terribly damaging to our capacity to truly understand the bible" I believe arises from 1) a view of Hebraic thinking (as opposed to bibical revelation) which I consider somewhat naive<br /><br />2) does not take into account an understanding of doctrinal development - it appears to me to tend toward a fundamentalistic orientation<br /><br />3) fails to recognize that a solid doctrine of Creation will acknowledge that within every culture - including the Jewish culture of the Old Testament peoples - there are aspects of reality that are reflected and aspects that are horribly marred. That is why the church is enriched by persons from cultures far removed from both Hebrew and Greek languages. People will discern in the biblical revelation aspects that persons shaped by different cultures would not be able to discern.<br /><br />So the debates of the first 500 years wherein Trinitarian theology developed for example occurred not within Hebrew categories but Greek categories. It is interesting that some of the Scriptures also in the Old Testament were in Aramaic.<br /><br />So I think I would prefer the use of the term biblical worldview rather than Hebraic worldview for biblical worldview allows for the developments not only of theology but also of modern science wherein we understand the earth goes around the sun...Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15192726678887581280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17523996.post-18727512924567149652007-06-07T20:22:00.000+10:002007-06-07T20:22:00.000+10:00Glen, good comment. Just to affirm that in some w...Glen, good comment. Just to affirm that in some ways I/we would agree with what you are saying. Our point is simply to point out the Bible can only be truly understood over the long term from a Hebraic worldview. Even though that it was enriched by Hellenistic thinking, the surplanting of the Hebraic is terribly damaging to our capacity to truly understand the bible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com