We were reading Origen's First Principles alongside Strauss' Life of Jesus Critically examined. What struck me is that both of them argue that a literal reading of the Bible does not convey its true message. However, with different presuppositions they land on two different planets.
Strauss' presupposition (largely simplified) is that the supernatural in the Bible is a myth. He does not deny God's existence but has almost like a new age belief of every man's inner ability to be in relationship with him (or be saved). He puts a lot of weight in the evolution of human understanding, and regards the men of the antiquities as gullible, naive, even stupid. Thus the Bible is not a product of a people group that tried to lead people astray, but that they truly believed what they wrote. A modern, enlightened person can read the Bible and tell the myth from the fact, and thus get to the gore of it (which has nothing to do with Jesus).
Origen's presupposition on the other hand relies on an omnipotent God. The literal reading of the Bible is thus not enough, but it needs to be read spiritually, aiming for a communion with God. A transcendent God cannot be understood by a literal reading only, but a person who has been educated in a community to a right reading of the text can understand the deeper meaning of the literal text. The hermeneutical principle conveyed is - naturally - allegory.
Therefore, two different presuppositions, two different readings, two different results. Which one is more scientific?
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti