tree_and_leaf | (no subject)

I was having great difficulty motivating myself to revise for my last exam (tomorrow) until I reminded myself that, actually, I do like theology, and in particular I like doctrine, and I get to read and engage with stuff I really like (or, in the case of Schleiermacher, like arguing with). I have babbled of my love for Aquinas before, but The Confessions is a great text too, and I have a good deal of fondness for Barth despite the fact that he was dead wrong to reject the analogia entis*)

Actually, I realised in the exam yesterday that despite my bitching about the OT - largely the result of being overwhelmed with Too Many Texts - I really love that too. I still don't like the method of approaching texts that Biblical Studies tends to default to, but writing about, say, Ezekiel is just fun. And remind me - or don't, perhaps - to tell you sometime why the Holiness Code (Lev 17-26) is not dull superstitious legalism but, despite some attitudes that we would rightly challenge today, a brilliant piece of theology and a new vision for the people of God. Whoever compiled it was a genius, seriously.

Incidentally, I recently found a clever fic about the Deuteronomist, the composition of the 'book of the law', and the Josian reform, which has clearly been written by someone who knows their Biblical scholarship. I do love the AO3...

* A pity, because I think his theological account of creation would be much more convincing if he could tie it up with revelation, which a proper understanding of the analogia entis allows; creation is a kind of revelation too.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Feel free to talk about the Holiness Code any time. :)

Well, once the doctrine exam is out of the way...

Seconding this. I am the only atheist I know of who's interested in theology!

Shiny! I've been enjoying Kierkegaard's Works of Love because, in seminary, I got *really* tired of reading most theology, and this is devotionally written. It's helping me regain interest.

(I have to admit though, I've never been that big of a fan of Augustine's Confessions, though part of that might be because my prof spent so much time on his (Augustine's) whining about his mother. And I have issues with how Augustine's ideas changed the church.)

I don't like all of Augustine's impact on the church - his ideas about sexuality in particular have been very destructive* - but the Confessions really is a tour de force. And I thought what he does with Monica is actually very interesting - he uses her to symbolise the faith and love of the church; a lot of the time (though not entirely, because she's still a real person and a rounded - and flawed - character) she is the vehicle through which God reaches out to Augustine, only Augustine is too proud to notice until he has his breakdown in the garden, and there's a parallel between Monica's tears earlier on and his tears in the conversion scene.

* Unlike Blessed Thomas, who is so much more sensible and indeed consistent, because Augustine's pessimism about sexuality really doesn't fit with his other views on creation...

I still don't like the method of approaching texts that Biblical Studies tends to default to

So what is that approach, and why don't you like it?
I'm curious because my father is an OT scholar, and I had drummed into me from an early age "the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text", and I don't know if that's a common or uncommon approach, though it makes perfect sense to me.
Oddly enough, my approach to fannish meta and my approach to Biblical exegesis have influenced each other.