R. W. L. Moberly

In an e-mail exchange Walter Moberly told me that his ideal reader 'want[s] something that takes both scholarship and spirituality seriously.' For such readers he presents readings of several OT passages.

He makes a point of differentiating 'the world in the text', 'the world behind the text' and 'the world in front of the text'. All three need to be taken seriously. The world of the writer (behind the text) is not the same as the narrated world, and we also bring both other parts of the show more canon and the church's traditions to our readings of the texts. This is part of 'Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture'. It is important to keep in mind which world we are moving in. I found this distinction very useful. On the one hand, I understand the importance of placing passages in their own context, on the other hand, I read the Bible because it is scripture, and cannot place my reading outside of that context.

Moberly usually uses the NRSV translation, but on occasion differs from their interpretation. I wish my Hebrew were good enough to notice these things for myself, but he points out the usage of key terms in the Hebrew, pulling things together that are not obvious in translation. Other times he marks certain words in the translation and discusses why other choices might be prefered. To me this kind of discussion is fascinating. It seems to me that understanding the meaning of a text has to start with understanding the words on the 'page' but that a translation often fails to get that across.

I read the chapter 'Does God Change?' with particular interest. Here Moberly discusses passages where God is said to change his mind or even 'repent' of his decisions. Although this goes against some of our received definitions of God, he points out that this is part of God being in relationship with people.

The book starts by discussing the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9). It moves on to other basic passages in the Torah, Isaiah, the Psalms, Job and Jonah. We are not given full readings of any of the books, or even of the chosen passages, but rather shown the challenges that the passages offer, and offered an indication of how these challenges could be faced. More, we are given tools to enable us to notice challenges in other passages.

Warning. The bibliographic footnotes are dangerous. They often convince me that I need to read that other book as well. show less

With so many people claiming to be talking for God, how do we know who to take seriously? This is not just a present day problem. Moberly leads us through a series of readings in both the Old and New Testaments in an attempt to find biblical criteria for accepting or rejecting what is said to be 'God's Word'.

First, this is not an easy read. I'll come back to it in a few months to see if I can get more out of it a second time.

Second, there is no easy answer given. There is a limited attempt show more to apply the ideas to modern figures and issues, but even here readers are encouraged to find their own answers, and not given his.

SPOILER!
Third, the challenge at the end is that discernment depends on the same qualities as prophecy. Unless we grow into the kind of people who could prophesy, we will have trouble discerning. Gulp. On the other hand, what use is reading theology if it doesn't make us at least want to change? show less

Summary: Explores how one can privilege the Bible over other texts, ultimately as a way of encountering and believing God in Christ.

R. W. L. Moberly asks a basic question in this book: why may we trust the Bible and privilege it over other books in disclosing what it means to believe and know God? He sets himself a challenging task, turning aside from the apologetic approaches that appeal to evidence for the trustworthiness of scripture. He sees this as a modernist project in a post-modern show more age where the question of why particularly study the Bible over other books is a live issue. He takes as a point of departure Benjamin Jowett’s advice that we read the Bible as we would other books.

He contends that there are three ways to read the Bible: as history, as a classic, and as scripture, looking for it to disclose God to us. He models an exercise in such reading in a comparison of the Aeneid and Daniel 7. The real question then is what warrants the move from the second to the third type of reading. He explores why few of us read the Aeneid as scripture leading us to faith in Jupiter.

He draws on the work of Peter Berger, Leslie Newbigin, and others to observe the importance of plausibility structures and that the ones we heed and are shaped by will determine whether or not we privilege scripture. In reading scripture with the church, we read within an interpretive tradition, we approach a canon of scripture, of books whose authority has been recognized by the church. This implies an openness to what we will find and a willingness to act wholeheartedly to the truth.

What is attractive in what Moberly says is that I think he describes how many people come to faith. It is not through evidentialist proofs but a personal journey of reading, often with other Christ-followers, and finding the “ring of truth” in what they read that brings them to a moment of decision, a step of trusting not only what they are reading but that these are God’s words for them. There is a kind of “faith seeking understanding” that one exercises.

While a persuasive case may be made vis a vis the Aeneid, the harder test case is the Qur’an. There is equally an interpretive community and plausibility structures that may guide one “open” to affirm belief in Islam. One could equally follow the process of reading the Qur’an as history, as a classic, and as scripture leading to belief. I don’t think Moberly has answered the question for me of why privilege one religious text over the other where there are active plausibility structures supporting each? What he does do is explain why such structures have so much influence on the belief of individuals embedded in those structures.

This aside, Moberly concludes the work with a well-stated plea for biblical literacy, citing the lapses scholars and commentators who ought to know better have made. The approach Moberly advocates certainly encourages that literacy. He offers an alternative to evidentialist approaches that fail to resonate that may appeal to some. But I think Moberly needs more to truly contend for the privileging of the Bible over other extant religious texts.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher via Speakeasy. show less

I was having a lot of trouble getting into this in the beginning. However, once he got through the preliminaries, he moved to the reasons we as Christians read the Bible as a privileged text, why it is better to consider the Bible as 'trustworthy' than 'inerrant', and what Dawkins gets wrong.