The Upper Room

kutschkem

07:45

How much does Death of the Author apply to interpretation of scripture? Are all the citations we see in the New Testament really in the context of the original meaning, or in "Death of the Author" fashion citing sacred scripture in a new but also true context?

HNQ

10:49

1

Q: If there were no Original Sin, would we wear clothes, according to Catholic theologians?

According to Catholic doctors or Fathers of the Church, if Adam hadn't sinned, would we wear clothes? Or are clothes a consequence of Original Sin? St. Thomas Aquinas asks such speculative questions regarding the condition of Adam's offspring had he not sinned (Summa Theologiæ I q. 99, q. 100, q....

GratefulDisciple

11:38

@kutschkem I assume this is what you meant by "Death of the Author:

> Death of the Author is the literary theory that essentially removes the author from the equation and allows the reader to interpret the text largely unguided. Once the author completes the text, it is released upon the world for the audience to make of it what they wish. It frees the audience to read into the text whatever meaning they wish.

To answer your question, it would depend on your own (or your church's or your theology's) hermeneutical stance. I myself am an advocate for a strong inclusion rather than removal of the author, in that the author's context MUST inform responsible interpretation of a text BEFORE any theology is done. Canonical context + starting principle of trusting the veracity of the text (since the authors are apostolic) makes sure that the theology using the text has some control, making it orthodox.

When NT text cites OT text in a new interpretation, the NT authors IS doing theology, and we can discern their hermeneutical principles they used. They DID create a new context (with the advent of Jesus) thus we trust their "typological invention". But if we discern carefully, there's an organic principle behind it, and we as 21st century reader need to be faithful to THEIR hermeneutical principles in constructing our own theology.

The Protestant position is that this organic principle has to drive theology and all traditions need to be measured by this as a responsible deployment of the sola scriptura principle. That's how we measure both RC and EO traditions. That's why I can (in theory) accept some RC traditions beyond what Protestant theologies accept like Concupiscence, Transubstantiation, Ministerial Priesthood, Mary as Mother of the Church, etc. as valid doctrinal development.

GratefulDisciple

14:35

@kutschkem BTW Your question "Are all the citations we see in the New Testament really in the context of the original meaning" is a million-dollar question (at least it is for me) that continues in the back of my mind as I read more into the latest Biblical scholarship. So I starred it. To answer in another way, it's somewhere in between, not "original" but not "death of author" fashion either.

But what IS the exact principle they used? I'm still looking for it in the critical Bible scholarship in the academia (post 19th century) where I have seen multiple options, and I'm still vetting them for my own personal conviction. For example, this is the book I'm currently reading, as a proposal for the principle regarding eschatological continuity from OT -> Jesus -> NT:

When the Son of Man Didn't Come: A Constructive Proposal on the Delay of the Parousia that admits that the 1st generation Christians were wrong about Jesus's immediate return (within a generation) because Jesus himself seemed to hint it but if we read OT prophetic writings as "conditional prophecy", we should read Jesus's prophecy differently.

Another book by John Walton that I think I will read, since (written in 2023) it seems to contain all his experiences after writing at least 6 "Lost World" books, is Wisdom for Faithful Reading: Principles and Practices for Old Testament Interpretation that arguably is ALSO the hermeneutic that NT writers used.

kutschkem

15:06

Thanks for the thoughtful answers. I fully agree to the inclusion of the author (after all, what are we left with if we exclude the author from revelations?). But it certainly feels like the New Testament at times teaches new things, using citations from the OT in new contexts. I'm not really expecting an answer but appreciate that at least I'm not alone in feeling that. And then we always have to consider that things can have multiple meanings, prophecies can be fulfilled multiple times etc.

Wyrsa

15:18

@GratefulDisciple I do not really see this as an issue. The Original intent of a verse about "women being silent in church" was clearly about those women who were being overly talkative with their new freedoms... but obviously does not mean we treat women as if they must be mute around men in church.

This is why the EOC has the "Holy Tradition"... clearly if slavery still existed, a good Christian Slave would be obedient and respectful.

Besides... what about the fact that during the endless handwritten recopying of the texts... people can "change things"

there are all kinds of "infohazards" unless you are strong in your faith.

GratefulDisciple

@Wyrsa Sure, EO doesn't have this problem. Protestants do.

Wyrsa

It is really peaceful, being Orthodox. I watch all of these westerners bring up these "existential crisis" type stuff... and I'm like, didn't the church resolve this stuff 1500 years ago? :P

GratefulDisciple

@Wyrsa Minor variations in the NT manuscripts were expected, but Protestants don't see it as a problem. It's part of textual criticism. It's only a problem for KJV-only people.

@Wyrsa Well, but EO doesn't seem to engage with modern questions much in the first place. Can one see it as "avoidance"? Can it be in danger of "ossification"?

@Wyrsa The women are quite assertive in the My Big Fat Greek Wedding film series :-), so yes, no problem there.

Wyrsa

@GratefulDisciple We don't?

GratefulDisciple

15:33

But yes, I would imagine stepping into an EO church participating in the 1500-year old liturgy IS peaceful and can feel like stepping into eternity.

@Wyrsa If you do, how can you not feel perturbed when dealing with modern philosophies that try to delegitimize the rationality of the Christian faith? Even the Catholic church's attempt in the 19th century to revive 13th century Thomism wasn't received well. You're proposing to revive a 6th century answer?

Not that it couldn't be relevant, but that's basically by ignoring the question instead of answering it. In contrast, post Vatican II Catholic theology was "modernized" and Ratzinger had a big role in it.

Protestant theologians did the same, examples: Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, etc.

Wyrsa

15:49

I'm not sure what you are getting at though

What modern question is so "ground breaking"?

I mean, the modern subject of AI is interesting. But scripture still teaches humans how to act

GratefulDisciple

16:32

@Wyrsa Non-scientific questions include: existentialism, moral relativity, claims of "new" religions / philosophies that the church fathers didn't address such as Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, aboriginal religions, democracy, socialism, capitalism, environmental protection, contraceptives, dealing with new weapons of war, CRISPR, animal testing for medicine research, euthanasia for terminally ill patients, etc.

@kutschkem How does LDS deal with guiding 21st century interpretation given that NT authors seemed to innovate using OT verses in new context? For example, how does LDS guide believers in their private interpretations?

Wyrsa

@GratefulDisciple I mean...
1. "New religions" are easily addressed with "nope", we don't need to address each "pagan" religion, we need to lead by example and share the Gospel.
2. Contraceptives are not strictly addressed by church fathers, but the guideline is clear: "If it terminates life, NO. If it prevents life, OK" The EOC considers EROS to be a valid form of love, sex is the expression of EROS and as such within a married life is perfectly acceptable.
3. Governments... all governments and types. It is not really that difficult. But it's longer than just what I can write here... (and …

Animals are never described as having souls... so unfortunately and horribly we could literally do anything. However it must align with the earliest purposes of Humanity... We are supposed to care for Creation, we should "tend the walled garden" that God has given us.

(Paradise: The walled Garden)

GratefulDisciple

16:55

@Wyrsa Thanks. Your answer will do for now, until I read EO theology more to see its internal spirit. What I mean by euthanasia is the patient's own decision to end his/her life, is that sill murder?

About new religions it has to do with how you regard them for those who don't know about EO: is it automatic "hell" for them or are there some sort of engagement either 1) by affirming common good elements and/or 2) tailoring presentation of EO in their terms for easier acceptance. Remember how the church fathers engaged with paganism: there was dialogue.

About new economic forms, whether 1) EO takes step to speak on behalf of exploited labor force in industrialization, for example "inhumane" work condition / work hours, etc. 2) comments about some structural issues arising from capitalism that marginalizes certain class; 3) advocating property rights and some protection for the middle class, in relation to a human person's dignity, etc.

Matthew

17:12

@Wyrsa Not true; in multiple places, Scripture admonishes us to act responsibly and humanely toward animals. Torturing animals for amusement is clearly wrong, souls or no souls. Even when Scripture says to kill animals (e.g. if they are dangerous), Scripture proscribes capital punishment for humans also.

@GratefulDisciple How is that different from suicide? (Note: I assume we're talking about active assistance as opposed to withholding or withdrawing medical intervention.)

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew I think the clearest term would be "assisted suicide"; whether it's ethical from the patient or from the assistance side. Withdrawing medical intervention is not normally euthanasia. Then there is removing life support from a comatose patient. Those kinds of medical situations are what I expect a theology to cover by coming up with certain medical ethics principle, hence the question to @Wyrsa about official EO positions on it.

@Matthew Pope Francis is known for causing a controversy by outlawing capital punishment in most societies, but at least there are principles being proclaimed.

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple Assisted or not, it's still suicide, it's definitely wrong. The assisted part likely means the assistant(s) is/are also culpable, true.

@GratefulDisciple I am suspicious of forbidding Mosaic Law being practiced. Yes, as Christians we are not bound to follow it, but to forbid following it seems problematic.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew We're talking about patients suffering terribly (with increasing intensity) for at least a few weeks (because of terminal cancer, for example) with no good prognosis. So guidance on euthanasia should clearly define the boundary of when it's acceptable.

Matthew

17:27

@GratefulDisciple Our lives belong to God; it is in His hands to decide when we live and when we die, and whether we suffer in the interim. Paul suffered; did he take his own life, or regard his suffering as God's will for him?

I agree there is room for discussion when we're talking about whether to employ artifice to prevent someone dying. Actively taking a human life, however, is always wrong.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew Paul wouldn't be eligible for euthanasia, so that's not a good counter illustration. This is about meaningless suffering. There are situations where "active" / "passive" taking is a blur.

HNQ

2

Q: Is it (religiously) legal to sell a Bible to a second-hand bookshop?

I am not a Christian. In a second-hand bookshop I often visit, there are many Bibles for sale. These books are mostly in Chinese and Korean, sometimes English, piling up meters high (maybe 200 prints or more). The bookshop owner says many Chinese and Korean believers sold (or sometimes donated) t...

bible morality commerce

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple So you're God, now, to determine what is meaningless and what is meaningful? Careful, there...

Why wouldn't Paul be eligible? After all, life has a terminal prognosis. I might be perfectly healthy now, but want to kill myself in order to avoid getting old and decrepit; why shouldn't I be able to do that? I just want to avoid "meaningless" suffering...

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew Because Paul was not suffering a terminally ill disease with excruciating pain.

Transcript for