Difference between revisions of "What are some errors to avoid when studying Biblical law?"
From Theonomy Wiki
m (Protected "What are some errors to avoid when studying Biblical law?" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) |
(added links to examples) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
# Treating Biblical law as written much later than what is presented as fact from the text itself (Mosaic authorship). | # Treating Biblical law as written much later than what is presented as fact from the text itself (Mosaic authorship). | ||
# Treating Biblical law as a set of disintegrated legal codes (Covenant Code, Holiness Code, Deuteronomistic Code), created by (and representing) disparate interest groups, which were then redacted/integrated into their final form later (post-monarchy or post-exile). | # Treating Biblical law as a set of disintegrated legal codes (Covenant Code, Holiness Code, Deuteronomistic Code), created by (and representing) disparate interest groups, which were then redacted/integrated into their final form later (post-monarchy or post-exile). | ||
| − | # Treating Biblical law as derivative from other ancient Near East law codes (such as the Code of Hammurabi). | + | # Treating Biblical law as derivative from other ancient Near East law codes (such as the Code of Hammurabi). <ref>See, for example: {{:Translink|Doesn't the Code of Hammurabi "eye for an eye" concept predate Biblical law?}} |
# Looking for (apparent) parallels with other ancient Near East law codes (parallelomania!) and then assuming some form of cultural continuity to guide interpretation of the Biblical text. I have checked many of these alleged parallels and found them to be false (try this yourself!). Samuel Greengus, for example, has made many mistakes of this sort, and Greengus is used uncritically by many other scholars. | # Looking for (apparent) parallels with other ancient Near East law codes (parallelomania!) and then assuming some form of cultural continuity to guide interpretation of the Biblical text. I have checked many of these alleged parallels and found them to be false (try this yourself!). Samuel Greengus, for example, has made many mistakes of this sort, and Greengus is used uncritically by many other scholars. | ||
# Interpreting Biblical law as evolving from Israelite or pre-Israelite cultural norms, rather than as transcendently delivered (imposed upon the existing culture) by God. | # Interpreting Biblical law as evolving from Israelite or pre-Israelite cultural norms, rather than as transcendently delivered (imposed upon the existing culture) by God. | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
# Attempting to force Biblical law into a presumed framework (e.g. "5-point covenant model", dispensationalism). | # Attempting to force Biblical law into a presumed framework (e.g. "5-point covenant model", dispensationalism). | ||
# Using "Interpretive Maximalism" (e.g. the approach of James Jordan and similar commentators). | # Using "Interpretive Maximalism" (e.g. the approach of James Jordan and similar commentators). | ||
| − | # Failing to recognize that many of God's laws transcend God's covenants. This error causes an interpreter to fail in properly distinguishing the transcendent aspects of God's law from the covenantally-bound aspects. Biblical covenants can (and do) pass away: Heb 8:13. Many Biblical laws never pass away, because they are transcendently bound to the character of God himself. | + | # Failing to recognize that many of God's laws transcend God's covenants. This error causes an interpreter to fail in properly distinguishing the transcendent aspects of God's law from the covenantally-bound aspects. Biblical covenants can (and do) pass away: Heb 8:13. Many Biblical laws never pass away, because they are transcendently bound to the character of God himself.<ref>See {{:Translink|Is every law of God bound to a particular covenant?}}</ref> |
You have to watch out for all of the above problems when you pick up a given book or commentary dealing with Biblical law. Even a good portion of "conservative" scholarship is affected by one or more of the above. This doesn't mean that you cannot learn valuable things from these books or commentaries. Just be alert for the author's biases and presuppositions, and learn to throw out any worthless observations. | You have to watch out for all of the above problems when you pick up a given book or commentary dealing with Biblical law. Even a good portion of "conservative" scholarship is affected by one or more of the above. This doesn't mean that you cannot learn valuable things from these books or commentaries. Just be alert for the author's biases and presuppositions, and learn to throw out any worthless observations. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
[[ Category:Answered_Questions ]] | [[ Category:Answered_Questions ]] | ||
[[ Category:Questions about the organization and character of Biblical law ]] | [[ Category:Questions about the organization and character of Biblical law ]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Answered Questions]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Questions about the organization and character of Biblical law]] | ||
Revision as of 01:57, 19 April 2021
Here is a list of common errors which I have encountered in scholarship on Biblical law. Often, many of these errors are committed simultaneously by a particular commentator/teacher:
- Relying upon Rabbinic interpretations of (and methods of interpreting) Biblical law. The Rabbis continued many of the errors of the Pharisees, which Jesus explicitly rebuked (Matt 15:6, Matt 16:11-12).
- Treating Biblical law as fundamentally incomplete and/or never intended to be a law code.
- Treating Biblical law as written much later than what is presented as fact from the text itself (Mosaic authorship).
- Treating Biblical law as a set of disintegrated legal codes (Covenant Code, Holiness Code, Deuteronomistic Code), created by (and representing) disparate interest groups, which were then redacted/integrated into their final form later (post-monarchy or post-exile).
- Treating Biblical law as derivative from other ancient Near East law codes (such as the Code of Hammurabi). Cite error: Closing
</ref>missing for<ref>tag
You have to watch out for all of the above problems when you pick up a given book or commentary dealing with Biblical law. Even a good portion of "conservative" scholarship is affected by one or more of the above. This doesn't mean that you cannot learn valuable things from these books or commentaries. Just be alert for the author's biases and presuppositions, and learn to throw out any worthless observations.
Half of the task in studying God's law for yourself is simply to avoid the above 15 errors. Another quarter (of the task) is to prevent yourself from reading your modern biases/worldview into Israelite culture. Learn to read God's law in a way that is sympathetic with its expressed motive clauses. Read with the assumption of consistency and authorial unity of purpose.
