One of the many issues that I have struggled with since my seminary days, and since I became engaged in ministry on a professional basis, was whether biblical theology should be done from the "bottom up" or from the "top down?" Coming out of a Pentecostal background where little or no formal training was required for ordination to the Gospel ministry, I was surrounded by people who believed that the only thing required for effective ministry was for one to be called by God. As I completed my studies at a Bible institute (the minimum required training for many Pentecostal churches), and then went on to purse college and graduate-level theological education, I would constantly hear that "much study is affliction of the flesh," and that advanced education would erode the spirituality of the candidate for ministry. After having undergone advanced training, I almost got caught up in thinking that only thoroughly trained persons would qualify for ministry and to do biblical theology. However, during my training, I was exposed to Liberation Theology, a way of doing biblical interpretation and theological reflection from the standpoint of oppressed and socially marginalized people. My training led me to be exposed that theology can be done by professionally trained "experts" who possess all types of academic and professional degrees, but that by and large, the majority of them work out their theology independently of suffering people. This type of theology is usually done from the comfort of an office in an academic institution or a library. Liberation Theology, on the other hand, emerges from the struggle of people in the so-called Third World, and of Slavetown, U.S.A. who are making every attempt to "make ends meet," and to survive with dignity.
Having been exposed to theology from both socio-economic standpoints, I continue to struggle with the question of whether is it "top down," or "bottom up?" My training and professional experience in the fields of ministry, higher education, and social work press me to believe that it is "top down." But my work and solidarity with people of limited education, and people who for the most part are engaged in menial type jobs as defined by society, and by people who struggle with limited income and inferior housing conditions, etc. lead me to believe that biblical theology should be "bottom up." While I am truly grateful for the degree of formal education that I have in the fields of religion and theology (by the grace of God), I am also grateful for the opportunity to have worked with people from whom I have learned a lot in terms of humility as well as true spirituality of dependence on God. As I prepare to teach an introductory course in theology at our church this week, I remember having taught theology in certificate-level programs at various seminaries, where the students for the most part, have been either lay folks or ordained ministers whose theological training was very limited. I also remember facilitating programs of theological studies within the prison system with the residents, some of whom have gone on to advanced studies and into the profession of the ministry upon their release.
In closing, I would invite you to accept the challenge of imagining agricultural, industrial, and blue-collar workers doing biblical interpretation and theological reflection from their social location. Then from there, find a way to bring together those who do it from the standpoint of comfort with those whose theological reflections emerge from their existential reality of suffering and struggle.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, September 7, 2015
Interpreting the Bible-Step Nine:Eliciting Meanings
This principle entails elements of previous principles, yet retains its own distinctiveness. The principle states that "no meaning should be elicited from Scriptures other than that which a fair and honest interpretation yields (Northeast Bible Institute, p.1)." By this I mean that the reader of Scripture should make use of all the tools which one has available in attempting to determine what the correct interpretation of a passage or particular book of the Bible might be. To elicit an interpretation which is not found even implicitly in Scripture, is to distort the original intentions of the writers of Scripture. If possible, one should make use of the original languages (Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew) in which the Bible was written. In this way, it is possible to come closer to the meaning which the writers sought to give (Carmona, p.35).
This particular principle guards us against "reading into" the Scriptures something which is not there, even by implication. It also prevents us from arriving at conclusions which were never intended by the writers.
The questions for us are:
What tools, in addition to the Bible itself, do we utilize in attempting to draw out the meaning of what we read in Scripture?
How do we reconcile the discrepancies that exists between the different translations of the Bible?
How do we reconcile the differences of interpretation and perspectives that exist between the different biblical commentaries?
In your opinion, is it possible for us to achieve a purely "objective" and "infallible" interpretation of the
biblical text?
Feel free to address any one or all of these questions. Your input is greatly appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
This particular principle guards us against "reading into" the Scriptures something which is not there, even by implication. It also prevents us from arriving at conclusions which were never intended by the writers.
The questions for us are:
What tools, in addition to the Bible itself, do we utilize in attempting to draw out the meaning of what we read in Scripture?
How do we reconcile the discrepancies that exists between the different translations of the Bible?
How do we reconcile the differences of interpretation and perspectives that exist between the different biblical commentaries?
In your opinion, is it possible for us to achieve a purely "objective" and "infallible" interpretation of the
biblical text?
Feel free to address any one or all of these questions. Your input is greatly appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Deutero-Isaiah-What do you Think?
In a previous essay, I had spoken about the Documentary Hypothesis, a theory that reflects multiple authorship of the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) In this essay, I would like to speak about the view that the book of the prophet Isaiah was written by more than one person. This alleged second author is also referred to as Isaiah because he allegedly wanted to remain faithful to the theology of the first Isaiah.
This supposed author is referred to as Deutero-Isaiah, or Second Isaiah.
There are three basic reasons why some biblical scholars, theologians, and ministers believe that there was more than one hand involved in the composition of the work which bears Isaiah's name. Those reasons are as follows:
1. Difference of literary style between chapters 1-39 and the rest of the book. The style of writing in the first 39 chapters are of a sad and gloomy nature, reflecting despondency and depression. The writing style of chapters 40 through the rest of the book are more jovial and celebratory. Interestingly enough, some years ago, I was reading the book of Isaiah in the King James Version. I was not paying attention to issues of literary style or any of those things that normally come along with the analysis of literary documents. I was more interested in the theological content of the book. In spite of that, however, the differences in literary style between the first 39 chapters and the rest of the book imposed themselves on me. I found it amazing that a book which was written in the Hebrew language would reflect the same literary differences in the English language.
2. The scenes described from chapter 40 on, are scenes that could only be described by a person living in those times. The 40th and subsequent chapters of Isaiah describe scenes that would have only been familiar to someone living in the time of the Babylonian Exile or afterwards. So those who advocate for the Second Isaiah point of view, tend to believe that First Isaiah lived prior to the Exile and that Second Isaiah lived during or after the Exile.
3. First Isaiah speaks of a tribal, nationalistic, and provincial god, i.e. the God of Israel. Second Isaiah speaks a global and universal god, who is concerned with all the nations of humankind. Second Isaiah's god is more of a cosmic deity, where First Isaiah's god is one who is more restricted to one nation.
Our questions, then, are the following:
1. At the end of the day, does it make any difference whether there is one Isaiah or multiple Isaiahs?
2. Is the number of authors named Isaiah relevant to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible?
3. Is the issue of how many people named Isaiah relevant to the way we do biblical theology?
4. Does the issue of whether there was one or two people named Isaiah relevant to how we get "the cheese off the truck" (survive) economically and socially?
Tell us what you think relative to any or all of these questions. Your input is valuable and will be appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
This supposed author is referred to as Deutero-Isaiah, or Second Isaiah.
There are three basic reasons why some biblical scholars, theologians, and ministers believe that there was more than one hand involved in the composition of the work which bears Isaiah's name. Those reasons are as follows:
1. Difference of literary style between chapters 1-39 and the rest of the book. The style of writing in the first 39 chapters are of a sad and gloomy nature, reflecting despondency and depression. The writing style of chapters 40 through the rest of the book are more jovial and celebratory. Interestingly enough, some years ago, I was reading the book of Isaiah in the King James Version. I was not paying attention to issues of literary style or any of those things that normally come along with the analysis of literary documents. I was more interested in the theological content of the book. In spite of that, however, the differences in literary style between the first 39 chapters and the rest of the book imposed themselves on me. I found it amazing that a book which was written in the Hebrew language would reflect the same literary differences in the English language.
2. The scenes described from chapter 40 on, are scenes that could only be described by a person living in those times. The 40th and subsequent chapters of Isaiah describe scenes that would have only been familiar to someone living in the time of the Babylonian Exile or afterwards. So those who advocate for the Second Isaiah point of view, tend to believe that First Isaiah lived prior to the Exile and that Second Isaiah lived during or after the Exile.
3. First Isaiah speaks of a tribal, nationalistic, and provincial god, i.e. the God of Israel. Second Isaiah speaks a global and universal god, who is concerned with all the nations of humankind. Second Isaiah's god is more of a cosmic deity, where First Isaiah's god is one who is more restricted to one nation.
Our questions, then, are the following:
1. At the end of the day, does it make any difference whether there is one Isaiah or multiple Isaiahs?
2. Is the number of authors named Isaiah relevant to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible?
3. Is the issue of how many people named Isaiah relevant to the way we do biblical theology?
4. Does the issue of whether there was one or two people named Isaiah relevant to how we get "the cheese off the truck" (survive) economically and socially?
Tell us what you think relative to any or all of these questions. Your input is valuable and will be appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Interpreting the Bible-Step Eight-Contradictions
This particular principle of biblical interpretation challenges us to take a serious look at those parts of Scripture that appear to be in contrast or in contradiction with other parts of the Bible. It is a question of making every attempt to reconcile all those seemingly contradictory passages or statements.
This principle is the following: The Bible cannot contradict itself (Northeast Bible Institute, p.1). Its teaching in one part must agree with its teaching in every part. The contrasts and the variety which one finds in Scripture in no way indicate that there is contradiction in the Bible. Any interpretation which renders the Bible self-contradictory or inconsistent must rest on false premises (Carmona, p. 34)
One example of an apparent contradiction is the first three narratives of the crucifixion. The Gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark record that while Jesus was on the cross, both thieves that were crucified with Him were laughing at and mocking Him. Luke's Gospel account indicates that only one of the thieves was doing this, while the other showed repentance and asked Jesus for mercy. There are at least two possible explanations for these discrepancies. One would be that the first two Gospel writers were recording the events of the crucifixion from a particular angle, while the last Gospel writer was covering those same events from a different angle. This would be similar to the way that different newspapers in our time cover the same events, but yet seem to emphasize things that other newspapers overlook. Another possible explanation would be that initially both thieves were laughing at Him, and that eventually the other one "came to his senses," and repented and asked for mercy.
Have you ever encountered contradictory accounts in the Bible which you believe cannot be reconciled? If so, can you give us examples so that we can dialogue? Your input is important and will definitely be accepted as an important contribution to this conversation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
This principle is the following: The Bible cannot contradict itself (Northeast Bible Institute, p.1). Its teaching in one part must agree with its teaching in every part. The contrasts and the variety which one finds in Scripture in no way indicate that there is contradiction in the Bible. Any interpretation which renders the Bible self-contradictory or inconsistent must rest on false premises (Carmona, p. 34)
One example of an apparent contradiction is the first three narratives of the crucifixion. The Gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark record that while Jesus was on the cross, both thieves that were crucified with Him were laughing at and mocking Him. Luke's Gospel account indicates that only one of the thieves was doing this, while the other showed repentance and asked Jesus for mercy. There are at least two possible explanations for these discrepancies. One would be that the first two Gospel writers were recording the events of the crucifixion from a particular angle, while the last Gospel writer was covering those same events from a different angle. This would be similar to the way that different newspapers in our time cover the same events, but yet seem to emphasize things that other newspapers overlook. Another possible explanation would be that initially both thieves were laughing at Him, and that eventually the other one "came to his senses," and repented and asked for mercy.
Have you ever encountered contradictory accounts in the Bible which you believe cannot be reconciled? If so, can you give us examples so that we can dialogue? Your input is important and will definitely be accepted as an important contribution to this conversation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Revisiting the Documentary Hypothesis
For many centuries, both the Jewish and Christian communities subscribed to the belief that the first five books of the Bible (known to many of us as the Pentateuch), i.e. Genesis, Exodus,Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, were written by Moses, the leader that God raised to take the Hebrew people out of bondage in Egypt, and eventually form the nation of Israel. They were known in both communities as "the five books of Moses," or as "the Law of Moses." This assumption was held for a long time and then came under attack in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Certain biblical scholars and theologians who took a literary approach to Scripture, i.e. treating the Bible as any other form of literature, discarded that notion and replaced it with a theory that is known as the "Documentary Hypothesis." Of the various people that began to subscribe to the new theory, were two men, Karl Heinrich Graf, and Julius Wellhausen. Eventually, the theory became known as the Graf-Wellhausen theory.
Simply stated, this hypothesis or theory was that the first five books of the Bible were written by at least four different persons over a period of time in Israel's history. The theory also states that there were at least four strands that were eventually weaved into one volume, each strand representing representing a different name for God or reflecting the agenda of certain groups in the Hebrew/Jewish community. These four alleged documents or strands were as follows:
J- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Yahweh (or Jehovah) for God.
E- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Elohim for God.
D- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to emphasize the second writing of the law, Deuteronomy, supposedly edited and put into final form after the Babylonian Exile.
P- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to promote the interests of the priestly class in Israel.
Debates for and against have been held about this hypothesis over the last two centuries. Many of the so-called "liberal" scholars have given it their full-hearted support, while most the "conservative" scholars and believers continue to hold on to the Mosaic authorship of these books.
The questions for us are the following:
1. Does it make any difference, in the long run, whether the Pentateuch was written by Moses or by various authors?
2. Is denying the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch tantamount to denying the divine inspiration of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch?
3. Does our faith depend on who the particular authors of the Pentateuch, and for that matter, other books of the Bible, were?
4. What is the relevance, if any, of this to life in general?
Please tell us what you think.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Simply stated, this hypothesis or theory was that the first five books of the Bible were written by at least four different persons over a period of time in Israel's history. The theory also states that there were at least four strands that were eventually weaved into one volume, each strand representing representing a different name for God or reflecting the agenda of certain groups in the Hebrew/Jewish community. These four alleged documents or strands were as follows:
J- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Yahweh (or Jehovah) for God.
E- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Elohim for God.
D- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to emphasize the second writing of the law, Deuteronomy, supposedly edited and put into final form after the Babylonian Exile.
P- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to promote the interests of the priestly class in Israel.
Debates for and against have been held about this hypothesis over the last two centuries. Many of the so-called "liberal" scholars have given it their full-hearted support, while most the "conservative" scholars and believers continue to hold on to the Mosaic authorship of these books.
The questions for us are the following:
1. Does it make any difference, in the long run, whether the Pentateuch was written by Moses or by various authors?
2. Is denying the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch tantamount to denying the divine inspiration of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch?
3. Does our faith depend on who the particular authors of the Pentateuch, and for that matter, other books of the Bible, were?
4. What is the relevance, if any, of this to life in general?
Please tell us what you think.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)