The Mind of Brian

So, I am knee deep into the academic grind (hence the lack of posts) and I am trying to sort through all sorts of questions (my classes have raised some good ones-maybe I will address some later) but something that I keep coming back to is, “Where my place is in the academic world?” and “What it does for my soul?” It is interesting being in the theology department at an academic school (not seminary) in general, as being a “Bible scholar” has the pretensions of spirituality without any of the substance. That is, we engage in discussion of the text (kind of, as often it is more of what I would call “behind the text”….but that’s not the point of what I am saying here right now) but we don’t really engage in discussion of the subject, which is the spiritual life. We don’t pray. We trust our own understandings and pride ourselves on our knowledge and credentials. We look at what texts say as opposed to what texts mean; we seek to deconstruct texts to get at the original form or meaning, discuss them, discuss how they might have been shifted, but then make no consideration on whether this is right or wrong for us today (history with no implications). And being in at a Catholic school, we can talk about our differences (I am the token Protestant) and laugh and talk about how it affects the questions that we ask and not whether the differences are ones of substance or style (I just coined that….I like it, I might keep it in my expression inventory). In many ways, we end up putting ourselves over the text (or at least our methodologies) without what I would really say is listening to the text (the message of it). And the question I continually ask (myself) is, “Can we even read the Bible this way? Can it be read in a context outside of the context of faith (not discounting “Bible as literature” classes but maybe nuancing them, as in you can only understand the Bible when you consider its place of faith)?” This divide didn’t really happen until the 20th century (and even then not complete) as pastors were the ones who were the scholars (isn’t it interesting that now pastors are more inclined to be “businessmen” when they used to be teachers and professors, including some of the best Greek scholars while now pastors almost pride themselves on not being Greek scholars and then trusting the authority of others on the subject…but now I once again move into a different issue, discussions of the church and the anti-intellectualism or divide that comes between church and the mind.)

Not sure if all that makes sense, but those are the sort of questions with which I struggle right now, as well as the constant wondering if I have to sell my soul to the liberals in order to succeed in scholarship (and what exactly constitutes selling my soul and leaving my convictions and ideas). I have been growing and considering new ideas, challenging old paradigms of thinking, considering new ways and methods on their own, and getting a better grasp on much of the Synoptic Gospel literature (particularly John the Baptist). So on many levels, it is worth it, but sometimes I wonder what has happened to me, to the study of the Bible, and to the church.

Who would have thought that my break would be so busy? Between meeting with people about various issues to travelling out of town for a wedding (in addition to preaching a couple of weeks ago), I haven’t been as diligent about reading nor about reflecting on school. So, I get to my final class: Qumran Scrolls (aka Dead Sea Scrolls). This was a very enjoyable class. Once again, I got more acclimated with the background of the New Testament, as I understand more about Second Temple Judaism and the ideas of the time. I worked on my Hebrew skills (including reading unpointed Hebrew!) and began to ponder more and more about how to thoughtfully use these works in NT studies. I knew about the Dead Sea Scrolls from a textual perspective, but didn’t really know the whole story or complications involving in using them in scholarship; much of the “mystery” has been removed…though new “mysteries” are also there as well! I have a general gist for the topics and ideas, the history of scholarship (ironically, only 60 years or so..but still complicated!), and new avenues to explore, knowing where to start.

In many ways, though, this class was less about learning content as much as getting exposed to a new realm of literature (by reading it), thinking through methodology (how to understand backgrounds), and developing the skills of a scholar. Dr. Monson did a great job of trying not to dispense content but make us think, ponder, and consider topics on our own. He also presents great visuals for understanding ideas, drawing with multi-colors on the board. While discussion can be difficult for an afternoon class (when I am always tired), I learned another way to teach and found that I developed ideas for my own teaching ministry through his approach. I learned to actively engaged in literature in new ways, being forced to do more than just READ but to truly READ! Interestingly enough, I also sought to learn FROM the community that produced these scrolls. Dr. Monson tried to help us think about how this community engaged in interpreting and applying the Scripture, both with positives and cautions. It makes us ponder our own hermeneutics and practices. What would future communities think about the way that we use Scripture and live it out? It makes you more humble and cautious in our own writings.

How do I make reflections on Advanced Greek Grammar sound somewhat interesting? I could go into the intriacies in regards to aspect theory and how that works for tenses but unless you are a geek like me, you probably do not care. The thing that I probably most took out of this class was the need to THINK Greek, not just translate it. As we dived into syntax, I discovered a new appreciation for the ability to think and ponder it. We have to really immerse ourselves more in the biblical languages than we typically do in seminary classes and introductions to these languages. This only happens by reading again and again so that it comes more natural.

Another idea that I found interesting was that we often seek to have iron-clad rules in Greek, as opposed to tendencies or what is usual. In some ways, the “normal tendencies” cause us to find more exegetical significance in the anomalies (potentially), as we see that the author varies from the normal use for some reason. This might not be emphasis, but could show something different, unique, etc. Therefore, studies for tendencies are important–not just finding that something always works some way.

I also gained a new appreciaton for idiolect, how different authors use language and words differently. It is a good reminder of the uniqueness of each writing and each writer.

I guess most of all, I learned once again that studying Greek does not answer questions but asks new ones and gets you closer and closer to the texts. We must remember that it is another way to be captured by the text.