are chocolate chip, of course. :)

Let me know you stopped by, and what you think of the ideas presented here. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer based on my notes & recollections.

Dr. Catalano is a great speaker, by the way - if you ever get a chance to hear her, do!

That's pretty much it.

The only question I've been struggling through personally in relation to this, is the question of why these forbears are "my people," as opposed to those people.  This is as much a question of why the synoptic gospels, as opposed to the Gospel of Thomas, or why the Bible as opposed to, say, the Mahabharata.  That question has generated a fair amount of "slowing" as I think through what I'm writing in my dissertation.

In many ways, the answer that I'm a product of Western culture and that's the culture/history for which I'm primarily responsible is a satisfying answer.  But in other ways that answer feels narrow.  For example, one of the great achievements of the Christian religion (as a bearer of the Western culture I'm talking about) was the participation of African-American churches and King's personalist theology in the Civil Rights movement.  But King was inspired by Gandhi, who in turn read Thoreau, who in turn delved into the Bhagavad Gita.  It's not so clear at that point what the lines of demarcation are.

but one of my pet peeves, is the conflation of "traditional" and "conservative." They aren't the same, though conservatives would love to have us believe they are.

To explain what I mean, here is an excerpt from "A Short History of Medieval Philosophy" by Julius R. Weinberg:

That a scriptural passage admitted of several interpretations was already established by the doctrine that recorded events have an allegorical or moral meaning in addition to the literal meaning of the words describing them. . . That even the literal meaning is sometimes couched in figurative language was also insisted upon, not only by medieval Christians but also by the Hellenizing Jews of pre-Christian times (for example, in the paraphrases of Genesis, the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathon). Thus, while no attempt was made to explain away all miracles by purely naturalistic interpretations, the crudely anthropomorphic and anthropopathic descriptions of God and His actions were elucidated as merely figurative language.

The idea that scripture should be interpreted literally is a purely modern experiment, and a failed one at that.

only about Conservative

If our understanding of the Bible as "inspired by God" is not the traditional/conservative understanding that God determined every word, then what is our understanding of Biblical authority?

Who has this understanding? What I have read in my corner of theological conservatism is that part of the reason God inspired the folks He inspired is so that they would use their language; that their a four Gospels because they are four different voices.

Dallas Theological Seminary is one of the most conservative Evangelical seminaries in the country - bar none. The folks, largely from there, who translated the Net Bible are solidly conservative scholars. I will repost this hear because I love it - but also because there is hardly an ounce of "literalism" in the exegesis:

The book of Proverbs comes to a close with this poem about the noble wife. A careful reading of the poem will show that it is extolling godly wisdom that is beneficial to the family and the society. Traditionally it has been interpreted as a paradigm for godly women. And while that is valid in part, there is much more here. The poem captures all the themes of wisdom that have been presented in the book and arranges them in this portrait of the ideal woman (Claudia V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs, 92-93). Any careful reading of the passage would have to conclude that if it were merely a paradigm for women what it portrays may well be out of reach – she is a wealthy aristocrat who runs an estate with servants and conducts business affairs of real estate, vineyards, and merchandising, and also takes care of domestic matters and is involved with charity. Moreover, it says nothing about the woman’s personal relationship with her husband, her intellectual and emotional strengths, or her religious activities (E. Jacob, "Sagesse et Alphabet: Pr. 31:10-31," Hommages à A. Dont-Sommer, 287-95). In general, it appears that the "woman" of Proverbs 31 is a symbol of all that wisdom represents. The poem, then, plays an important part in the personification of wisdom so common in the ancient Near East. But rather than deify Wisdom as the other ANE cultures did, Proverbs simply describes wisdom as a woman. Several features will stand out in the study of this passage. First, it is an alphabetic arrangement of the virtues of wisdom (an acrostic poem). Such an acrostic was a way of organizing the thoughts and making them more memorable (M. H. Lichtenstein, "Chiasm and Symmetry in Proverbs 31," CBQ 44 [1982]: 202-11). Second, the passage is similar to hymns, but this one extols wisdom. A comparison with Psalm 111 will illustrate the similarities. Third, the passage has similarities with heroic literature. The vocabulary and the expressions often sound more like an ode to a champion than to a domestic scene. Putting these features together, one would conclude that Proverbs 31:10-31 is a hymn to Lady Wisdom, written in the heroic mode. Using this arrangement allows the sage to make all the lessons of wisdom in the book concrete and practical, it provides a polemic against the culture that saw women as merely decorative, and it depicts the greater heroism as moral and domestic rather than only exploits on the battlefield. The poem certainly presents a pattern for women to follow. But it also presents a pattern for men to follow as well, for this is the message of the book of Proverbs in summary.

Now this

The Bible is the record of God's foundational disclosure of God's own nature to Israel and to the Church. It is a privileged record of the experiences that our forebears had with God: the experiences that formed our community.

may lead to a difference: there are indeed parts of the authority and revelation that were pointed at specific times and places - and if you want to believe that people have really changed at core that may be very important to distinguish. However, I do not see the general tendency in the west (at least) to be more individualistic and self-serving, more isolated, and ultimately more violent really has been a change that has negated much of the scriptural message.

The more liberal Christian theology stresses the Bible as story, myth, the experiences that formed our community rather than a guide to the continued formation and strengthening of our community the more the difference becomes apparent.

It ain't about literalness.

says more about who the people are, than about who "god" is.  After all, there appears to be no authority other than the people's own reactions to say that this event was a revelation, and that other event wasn't, because this is how we see "god" and not that.

If that is the case, is it really a "revelation from god" at all, or a revelation from people?

Thanks so much for the entry, it was truly illiuminating and helped me understand Torah in my own tradition. I like that it was a revelation from the people. I really resonate with the idea that these accounts in the Torah were metaphorical descriptions of the beginning of our communities and their relationship with God. I sometimes wish I could have lived in biblical times and felt what revelation feels like. Again a true connection with God...Thats a whole other story...haha. But nice entry!!

It's nice to read something illuminating here because I am new to the street. Thanks again.