Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible By E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O'Brien My wife started reading this book and I've found myself reading portions here and there and having some interesting conversations about the topic. Anyone here familiar with the book?
To be clear, I happened to hear a podcast where the authors where talking about the book, they are not saying that reading scripture with Western Eyes is wrong, rather that it affects how we interpret what we read. They even suggested that they'd be happy if someone wrote the book entitled: Misreading Scripture with EASTERN Eyes. The point the authors are making is how our culture has a great impact in how we apply scripture. One of the examples from the book was something I mentioned in another thread where they discuss the scripture from Revelation regarding Jesus saying that since those he addressed weren't HOT, that he prefer they be COLD instead of Lukewarm. I will quote in the next post for reference.
I'm not familiar with the book, but I think the concept is correct. We have to learn to get outside of our culture when reading the OT and NT, otherwise, we interpret through our personal cultural biases and understandings. It is very hard to do, and no one does it perfectly. It first requires a good bit of reading and research into the history and culture of the place and time, and also, some degree of introspection into an analysis of how our culture influences our biases.
Wow, for someone who isn't familiar with the book, you pretty much almost quoted some of the exact statements the authors have made in the book and in the podcast I was listening to.
Easy example. If you don't understand 1st century marriage culture, you would assume that Mary and Joseph were simply "engaged" like we think of engagement, something to be easily broken off just by returning a ring. To the contrary, the 1st century Jews treated the betrothal as a binding agreement, which is why Joseph was trying to figure out how he could "put Mary away privately", or essentially dissolve the betrothal, without public trial, as a public trial would have resulted in Mary and Jesus being stoned to death. Instead, he took the humiliation, ostracizing, and potential legal risk of continuing on in the betrothal and being considered a co--sinner in their apparent pre-marital conception of a baby. Mary didn't go to "visit" Elizabeth just to see her cousin. She was hiding from the towns people.
Sounds interesting. Based on my interests and background, this too is where the stories of Creation and the Flood, among others, are often viewed through our modern cultural prisms.
Another example would be when people comb through the Revelation trying to figure out which of the key figures represents the USA. Some people insist that the USA must be one of the more powerful players, others with a different agenda assume that the lack of a clear mapping of the USA onto any of the major figures means the USA will have fallen by then. Some say the USA is mystery Babylon. But if it's not clear then we help nobody by insisting that "this must mean that". As with so much relating to the end times we'll either live through it (in which case we'll find out) or we'll die beforehand (in which case it isn't relevant).
Another easy, short, and positive example: Jesus calls his 12 disciples. Fishermen, tax collectors -- no big deal, right? Big deal. These were people that probably failed Rabbi school (hence they were fisherman, for example). Those great disciples were... school dropouts.
If I recall correctly, all Jewish boys were put through 'Rabbinic' training: the best became Rabbi's (or religious leaders of some kind?), the rest did something else. Because the disciples were doing something else, they at some point failed... Probably midway through their training (late teens, early 20's?), as Jesus wouldn't have been calling men the same age as himself (~30) to be disciples.
That's interesting that all boys would have received some training, but I guess that would be necessary as part of the process of the bar mitzvah, assuming that tradition is consistent from those times.
Never heard of that before either. Adds an interesting and different "view" into my personal bible reading. Thanks Number 6!
What I heard was very different. There were 3 different levels of school. The first one every boy went to and by the end of it they all could quote the first 5 books, i.e.. The Law. Those who wanted/showed aptitude went on to the next level where they studied, learned, and could quote the rest. In the third level a Rabbi came along and called individuals to teach personally. In choosing these men the Rabbi was telling them "you can do what I am doing." The disciples were aware of this and would have known that Jesus was telling them that they could do what He was doing. "Follow me."
I don't think that's so different. Maybe the only difference is that you heard it was optional, whereas I heard that you kept going until you didn't?
As an American citizen, I'm kind of interested in knowing where the United States is in end time prophecy. If it is in end time prophecy, that is.
It isn't there, so don't spend too much time looking. Although for many, they tend to impose whatever it is they are looking for...