HOME . PRAXIS NOW  .  PRAXIS PAST  .  CLASSES . EVENTS . BOOKSHOP  . WHAT'S NEW . REGISTER . LOGIN

Page 3            

But nobody asks the awkward question; nobody asks; if this is only history, why is it studied so much more than other historical texts?' A commentator in a recent issue of the journal Bible Review, (early 1993), claims that to follow the currently fashionable historical interpretation of the bible 'conscientiously,' "it is necessary to disbelieve in basic tenets of Christianity, such as the resurrection." One can only say of such people that they may believe something, but they have no Christian faith, for Christian faith is not blind belief in all and everything, but only in the objects of faith, objects outlined if not exhaustively defined in the Creed and, for inner Christianity, particularly in the Nicene Creed.  "If you do not believe,"  nor will you understand the writings of men of faith. This kind of modern interpretation ignores the intentions of the authors of works such as the books of the Bible, assuming that you can interpret a passage in the same way whatever the intentions of those who originally wrote it. It sometimes even assumes that you can interpret it idiosyncratically, from your own personal point of view, and still consider that you are passing on to others a valid view of the text that you are interpreting. Such an approach is only credible to those who are completely ignorant of the process of writing in a conscientious way, or who imagine that earlier authors were such fools that the content even of the great books of the Bible is accidental, and that no specific purpose existed for them other than the today fashionable objective of 'self-expression.' Those with experience of intentional writing, writing for a specific aim, will realize that in such work the aim determines the method of expression, and that only an awareness of that original aim can accurately reveal the intended meanings of certain words whose interpretation is determined by their context.