Is a Literal Reading of the Bible a Relatively New Gimmick?

Brian, I'd be interested in seeing this substantiated.

Brian,Forgive me for not responding sooner. I just returned from spending the weekend with a gaggle of grandkids. My question was not about what you were arguing, but about assertions made in the course of that argument. You wrote:

quote:

---

This emphasis upon a literal reading of the scriptures, which had earlier been stressed in Judaism over against a Christocentric reading of the Old Testament, ...

---

Again, I would like to see that characterization/generalization of Judaism substantiated.

Good evening, Brian. You write: Am I incorrect in believing that the sentence in question was yours and not Kummel's? Specifically, you appear to claim:

• This emphasis upon a literal reading of the scriptures, which had earlier been stressed in Judaism ...

Can you support your characterization of Judaism.I hate to be a nudge, but it would really help if you'd take a moment to answer the questions asked. Thanks.

Brian,Perhaps my problem is one of interpreting your posts. Please consider editing/reformating Message 3 to help clarify what are your words, what statements or paragraphs are direct quotes, and what statements or paragraphs constitute your paraphrase of Kummel or others.Parenthetically, references such "(Kummel, pp 20-23)" may be more helpful if accompanied by a title.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-10-2004]

Thanks, Brian.Do you have any idea what our friend Kummel was talking about? Specifically, to what period of Judaism might he be referring? Certainly not the Tannaitic. It occurs to me that the sentence "had earlier been stressed in Judaism over against a Christocentric reading of the Old Testament" might easily refer to no more that an understandable Judaic disdain for those who would twist the Torah into Christian prophecy. It may have little or nothing to do with the type of literalism that we associate with fundamentalism. Furthermore, it seems that Kummel's Judaism is far more monolithic that one would think reasonable.In any event, I look forward to hearing Kummel's arguments.

Unfortunately, you copied it from a single commentary without attribution, leaving the posted commentary unclear as to authorship in a manner suggestive of plagiarism.

quote:

---

As to the divine amanuensis or penman of this epistle, we are not so certain; it does not bear the name of any in the front of it, as the rest of the epistles do, and there has been some dispute among the learned to whom they should ascribe it. Some have assigned it to Clemens of Rome; other to Luke; and many to Barnabas, thinking that the style and manner of expression is very agreeable to the zealous, authoritative, affectionate temper that Barnabas appears to be of, in the account we have of him in the acts of the Apostles; and one ancient father quotes an expression out of this epistle as the words of Barnabas. But it is generally assigned to the apostle Paul; and some later copies and translations have put Paul's name in the title.

​

- see AN EXPOSITION - Commentary on the Whole Bible (1721), by Matthew Henry

---

For more on the good Rev. Henry, see the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religios Knowledge, which notes that the work, while "long celebrated as the best of English commentaries for devotional purposes", "has no critical value".For those interested in somewhat more recent commentary, permit me to suggest Kirby's Early Christian Writings.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-11-2004]

Not I.

My difficulty was not in understanding the point, but in respecting its author. Supplementing plagiarism with inane sarcasm is hardly an improvement. Good grief.

No, Brian, I have not read the book. How does it justify the generalization in question?

Brian?