I'm not sure where this thread will go. I responded to several items in a new blog set up by Freedom_of_Mind. The blog is called Scrutinizing Scripture, and parts of my responses might be of interest to readers here.

His entry for Monday Dec. 1, 2008 is about "The Problem of Isaiah 7:14: The Virgin Birth Prophecy." He sums it up thus:



Dec. 4, I respond:

I’m trying to understand your goal, and also your position, for Scrutinizing Scripture. In the intro at the side of the page you talk about a “proper hermeneutic.” You also talk about “comparing scripture with scripture.” The context in which you say this, it seems you think that “comparing scripture with scripture” is the proper way of doing hermeneutics. In what tradition did you learn that method? Can you name any scholars whose work I could look up to better understand?

Another question concerns your term in the Dec. 1 entry, first paragraph, “Protestants and Baptists.” I’ve never heard it stated that way. What do you mean by “Protestants” if you list Baptists separately?

Re Isaiah 7. In the Evangelical Lutheran seminary where I did my MA degree in theology, more than one professor taught that the virgin birth was based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew into the Greek. If I remember correctly, for one assignment we had to write a short paper on who we thought the child was in that chapter, and why we thought so. We used the HarperCollins Study Bible, NRSV. I could find no reason to think other than that the prophecy was made as a consolation for King Ahaz, and that the child would be born within a year or two from the time the prophet was speaking. Verse 15 says, “He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.” The footnote for V. 15 says “Curds and honey were choice foods for a newly weaned child, but hard to obtain in a city under siege.” The other footnotes also point to the same interpretation, not to mention the text itself.

(For his responses, readers will have to check the blog.)

Dec. 7, 2008, I respond to various topics:

Extra-Biblical Reference to Jesus

Re your response to Dhanamjaya that without the Bible we would not know about Jesus. Obviously, that statement needs some qualifications. The ancient Gnostics wrote just as much about Jesus as did the orthodox Christians. For starters, see "Nag Hammadi Library in English," edited by James M. Robinson et al. You can find it if you type "Nag Hammadi Library" into amazon.com. The early Church Fathers also write about Jesus. It was from them that we got significant passages of Gnostic texts prior to the finds of recent centuries. All this to say that extra-biblical references to Jesus exist.

However, no "disinterested party" proofs of him have yet been found. I did find a footnote in an Anti-Nicene Father book stating that records of his hearing before Pilate were destroyed earlier than the Romans normally destroyed records because of the very many demands to see them, or something to that effect. That footnote was written at least a century ago by Christian scholars, if I remember correctly, so I don't know how accurate it would be considered today. Possibly I can find it if needed.

The Child in Isa. 7:14

About the child in Isa. 7:14. I am fully aware that Matthew--and the whole of Christendom--disagree with me. Well, by now the more liberal churches acknowledge the mistake, which would include the people who put together the footnotes for the HarperCollins Study Bible. It was a Christian professor of Old Testament who taught me about this error. I asked her in the privacy of her office how she can retain her faith in light of this error. Unfortunately, I do not remember her answer. It was not very straight-forward and I did not understand it.

Hermeneutics: Compare Scripture with Scripture

Re "compare scripture with scripture" you said:



Thank you for explaining. I knew about all those schools except Masters College so I looked it up. Your definition for "Protestants" would of necessity include Martin Luther and the Lutherans. Yet the schools you list are not Lutheran so far as I know. Possibly it includes fundamentalist Lutheran such as Missouri Synod, but not mainline educators.

Not to denigrate these schools because I'm sure they're good at what they do. But they do not give a mainline education. A PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary, for example, is not the same quality as one from such a place as Toronto School of Theology or Harvard Divinity School.

The fundamentalist schools reject use of the scientific method when it comes to hermeneutics and higher biblical criticism. That's a major part of what caused the rift between fundamentalist and liberal Christianity around 1870. The other item was Darwin's publication of "Origin of the Species" in 1859. It seems the theologians in the United States did not become aware of Darwin's book until after the end of the American Civil War (1861–1865); I assume they were preoccupied with that.

This rift in between conservative and liberal Christians that occurred around 1870 may not have been evident in the general population until the early decades of the twentieth century, but it was very evident in academia and among the clergy long before that. I did my thesis on this and can provide more information if needed.

In the course I took on the history of hermeneutics, we went all the way back to the Jewish scholar Hillel and a colleague who predate the Christians if I remember correctly. The 1600s were actually considered to be quite recent history in comparison.

Nowhere did I see or hear anything about comparing Scripture with Scripture. Of course, I wasn't training for the ministry. The program I was in was purely academic. All the same, isn't "comparing scripture with scripture" something against which the Bible itself warns? There's this verse somewhere about "line upon line, precept upon precept." The connotations are negative.

I realize I come from a very different tradition than you do. Maybe I'm coming on too strongly. "Scrutinizing Scripture" and talking theology has been a lifelong passion of mine and I can get quite involved if I have a dialogue partner. I'm not sure if this is what you were counting on...