|
2 members (Roman, San Nicolas),
381
guests, and
109
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,542
Posts417,788
Members6,201
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100 |
So far, Fr. Tarazi is very insightful and interesting. I have yet to see anything contrary to the faith, unless the idea that Amos and Isaiah had post-exilic editors is contrary to the faith.
I haven't gotten to the New Testament books yet, but I anticipate that they will be worthwhile to study. His Old Testament series is not too earth shaking. Just when he says that Moses and the whole Exodus might have been fabricated by Ezekiel and Jeremiah to encourage the Jews in Bablyonian captivity to develop a sense of patriotism and get the guts to have a new exodus out of Babylon. By doubting the existence of Moses and the Exodus would mean that the Jewish faith is based on a lie. His New Testament series gives atheists a good position that Christianity is the sole invention of Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51 |
Just when he says that Moses and the whole Exodus might have been fabricated by Ezekiel and Jeremiah to encourage the Jews in Bablyonian captivity to develop a sense of patriotism and get the guts to have a new exodus out of Babylon. By doubting the existence of Moses and the Exodus would mean that the Jewish faith is based on a lie. His New Testament series gives atheists a good position that Christianity is the sole invention of Paul. He would say this about the Bible as literature. His theories are that much of the Old Testament as literary entity was formed in the perspective of the Babylonian Captivity, and that much of the New Testament as a literary entity was formed in the perspective of Paul. As a student of his, I never heard him make any judgment about the historicity of the events as recorded in the Old or New Testaments. For him as a biblical scholar, he would probably say that he can't really do much with the problem of historicity. He's not out to prove or disprove the historicity of these events - his job is to interpret the Bible precisely as literature. Now, would I recommend his writings to someone new to the Faith or someone struggling with their Faith? Absolutely not. But for someone who is stronger and wants to do biblical studies, I would recommend at least looking at his perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
Where does he say the exodus was fabricated? Page number?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100 |
Where does he say the exodus was fabricated? Page number? Basically on page 115-117 of Volume 1 he is saying that it was important for the Jews in Babylonian captivity to make up the story of a God of the Exodus so that even though the Jews were no longer in Jerusalem that their God in fact was a God of Exodus that did not dwell in one place. This is very important to keep up morale to a people deposed from their homeland. He does not directly say that it was fabricated but his words obviously imply this. I am not alone in reading it this way. If perhaps students were given other more Orthodox interpretations of the meaning of the Exodus then a compare/contrast could be done. While only being required to read one author, you are being spoon fed his theory. True graduate study means reading various theories and comparing/contrasting them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
Dear Theologos, After rereading pp 115-117, I can find no mention of the Exodus. Perhaps you mean 127-129? My version was published in 1991. There he says that the priestly tradition in exile raised the story of Abraham to greater prominence, reading the burning bush and exodus in the light of Abraham, but he never says it didn't happen or was fabricated. You say "He does not directly say that it was fabricated but his words obviously imply this." No, they don't imply that, not obviously. Shaped? Retold from a perspective? Certainly. But _fabricated_? I see no evidence that Tarazi means to say this. EDIT: I've been poking around the web to learn more about Fr. Tarazi, and came across some articles of his. The following is the conclusion to an article about the necessity for study of scripture in seminaries, and doesn't seem to speak in modernist terms about scripture. Whether he uses the historical-critical method or not, he speaks as if he really believes that the bible is the Word of God, intended for our salvation. But if we Orthodox are indeed as patristic as we claim, then scripture should be our kanon, our ultimate, if not sole, reference. And if scripture is indeed our ultimate reference, then it will tell us that God has always dealt with humanity in the same way, from Adam until the coming of Christ. It will tell us that God creates His community solely by means of His word. Those who imagine otherwise, who imagine that God continually finds new ways to express Himself, not only manifest their ignorance but deny the witness of scripture: that God has consummated His utterance in Jesus Christ. The kanon of scripture, ordained by our Fathers in the faith, is the complete expression of what God has intended to say, and that any subsequent "divine" utterances are to be patterned after scripture. This means that scripture is the sole kanon by which we determine whether any subsequent utterance � be it liturgical, Patristic, traditional, ecclesial, Orthodox, experiential, mystical, spiritual, or otherwise -� is indeed from God, or from His nemesis, Satan (2 Cor 11:3�4, 12�15). This was the practice of the early church, at least until the 5th century. Does our "church of today" stand as one with the early church? It is time that we Orthodox become serious and begin to treat this as our most essential question rather than our least considered presupposition.
Last edited by Pseudo-Athanasius; 03/15/07 11:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Karl,
Thanks for posting that. I guess this is where the laity need to be better educated about scripture studies. To say that the biblical authors and editors "sculpted" the Scriptures to address particular issues or teach a specific theology is not to deny that there is a historical basis to the Scriptures. In another thread, we had discussed whether the evangelists were authors who selected materials and crafted them for specific purposes. Some people get concerned if one claims that the four evangelists arranged and constructed the material with an eye to particular problems in the Church that needed to be addressed. I don't see any problem with that. I don't think that we have to hold that every speech from a biblical character is a literal transcription. It is very clear that, generally speaking, the various speeches in the bible are stylized. The book of Acts is an excellent example of that. Also, the biblical authors took liberties with the details of events and speeches, but for a theological purpose. This was common in the ancient world.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 489
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 489 |
Some people get concerned if one claims that the four evangelists arranged and constructed the material with an eye to particular problems in the Church that needed to be addressed.... Also, the biblical authors took liberties with the details of events and speeches, but for a theological purpose. This "sculpting" and the certain "liberties" are in part what make the scriptures inspired writings, rather than simply verbatim transcripts. What's truly amazing is how often the messages, with all their sculpting and liberties -- and perhaps even because of them -- continue to speak to every generation.
Last edited by Sophia Wannabe; 03/16/07 02:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
So long as one respects as true and historical the basic event character of the writings...
Personally, I have always believed that the Scriptures are principally liturgical writings (or writings intended to be read in a liturgical context) that convey true history with a religious purpose. Our readings from the St. Stephen's program on the NT writers on the Eucharist confirmed this perspective for me.
Peace,
Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
Speaking of Fr. Tarazi, I came across this quote in volume III, OT, p 186:
"And the baptized Christian who is tempted to make concessions to modern theological trends must always remember that he is the servant of the biblical Jesus Christ and of the latter's God and Father, not their public relations manager."
|
|
|
|
|
