As for being overly neurotic about things, I totally get that. And you’re not going off-topic. Gendered language is one of the thorny aspects of scripture that it’s difficult to interpret (at least for me).

BTW, I don’t know if you read my previous post titled “Why Words Matter”, but it addressed (as did many of the comments) gendered language in the church, and one of the issues we discussed was the difficulty in determining when “man” meant “man” and when “man” meant “mankind.”

My reading of the particular scripture you quote would be that “man” also refers to “women” but that this is an example where “man” is being used in the sense of “mankind.” Because the cultural pattern of using “man” to refer to men and women is a pretty common one, I think it’s a reading that holds up. But I can also see other readings that are equally arguable.

Also, thanks for sharing those thoughts about your students–my next couple of posts are going to be on intertextuality and reading different criticism/viewpoints into texts (and how that intersects with the ambiguity of the text).

AmyB, you’re right that the issue of translation is another interesting issue, though I think I’m going to sidestep that topic in this series (my knowledge about Biblical translations is very minimal). Kiskilili? Do you want to do a post at some point on Biblical translation?

Seraphine- I’m really enjoying this discussion and looking forward to part II. There have been some fascinating questions raised. I’m still thinking about the impact of translation and all of the different versions. Having grown up with the KJV and BofM, when I first encountered other versions of the Bible they just didn’t sound like scripture to me. It was very disconcerting. Does having various translations of the Bible undermine or change our views on its authority? Hmmm. . .

We sometimes assess individual claims of so-called higher criticism, but I think we rarely address its fundamental premise: that scriptural text can be read the same way any other text is read; it does not have a special ontological status.

For those who accept this premise, where does that leave biblical theology (or theology of sacred texts generally)? Like AmyB, I think SS is usually an exercise in flagrant eisegesis, about which I’m of two minds. On the one hand, I don’t disagree with the morals that are drawn. On the other hand, in many cases they’re not gleaned from an honest encounter with the text itself. So I wonder, couldn’t we just as easily read another classic work and draw from it whatever morals we’re planning on drawing? And when our values are forced onto a reading of the text, we can no longer honestly claim the text as an authority for those values–are we then not obligated to examine our values critically?

But those who reject this premise are equally plagued by problems: whose interpretation of sacred texts is authoritative, and on what basis (especially in inevitable cases of disagreement)? How are the many blatant contradictions dealt with? How do we know which passages to privilege over other passages? Do we tacitly acknowledge God’s hand in the canonization process, and why?

In any case, I’ve appreciated reading the works of biblical scholars who remain religiously committed and yet openly acknowledge, in the interest of intellectual honesty, instances in which the authors of scripture seem to depart quite dramatically from modern religious sensibilities.

(There are ways in which I see how and why the Muslim conception of scripture as an almost magical icon able to impart God’s wisdom in a way that transcends ordinary language developed, and what its appeal is, although I find it ultimately very unsatisfying.)

Last semester I taught discussion sections about the origins of Judaism and Christianity and their relationship to the Hebrew Bible (/Old Testament). The course drew disproportionately on Jewish and Christian students, and it was interesting (and sometimes painful) to watch them struggle with the biblical text. Many of them admitted the course essentially induced spiritual crises, for good and ill, because the text was shown to be so much more complex than their Sunday School and Hebrew School teachers had ever let on. Some of them confessed to feeling betrayed that they had always been taught the Bible supported all of their own religious claims clearly and unequivocally, without acknowledgment of the complexities or ambiguities of the text, or the role tradition and sometimes elaborate interpretation has played in shaping their communities’ beliefs.

AmyB, I definitely agree that the practice of reading these things against each other is a “delicious exercise” (and I have to say, I love that phrase). Also, thanks for your thoughts on the New Testament–those were new to me.

Johnny, my experience with postmodernism is primarily in the theoretical and literary realms–I haven’t done much reading in postmodern theology. I’d be curious to see how these theologians reconcile the wildly different belief-systems of postmodernism and religion. Also, I’m not sure that I’m entirely following the rest of your comment (if you want to further explain, please do!), which may be because I’m tired and sick. I do think the point you raise about God’s authority is a good one, though. I definitely think that figuring out the meaning of the scriptures (and how much to attribute to God) comes down to determining how involved you think God was in inspiring/bringing about a specific sacred text.

Mark, I’m not sure that I see those aspects of postmodernism as heresies, but I am reluctant to completely embrace certain aspects of postmodernism. Despite my belief in the influence of culture and the somewhat limited involvement of God (I tend to see more cultural influence in the scriptures than your average Mormon), I still believe in God as the ultimate authority.

The scriptures are full of symbolism that would probably make Dan Brown’s head spin, if he paid proper attention, and the religious evidence is abundantly clear that authors like Paul and Isaiah understood full well what they were doing when they wrote it down. If they didn’t they were either living breathing mimeograph machines, or extraordinarily poor writers.

I am a big fan of intertextuality, as long as one is dealing with the right set of texts. I see the anti-foundationalist aspects and anti-inspiration aspects of postmodernism as cardinal heresies, however.