metodos

No Biblia Theologica, de A. B. Caneday, é interessante ler o post A Multiculturalist’s Rant against the Society of Biblical Literature, e toda a discussão que gira em torno do artigo de Hector Avalos, The Ideology of the Society of Biblical Literature and the Demise of an Academic Profession no SBL Forum.

Creio, entretanto, que em nosso meio – quero dizer, Brasil, América Latina – a discussão possa ser colocada em termos um pouco diferentes, mas ver o que “eles” estão debatendo também valerá a pena…

Por outro lado, defendo que muitos dilemas apresentados no debate mencionado já foram superados por nós ou não fazem sentido para nós, que temos problemas maiores “lá fora”, no mundo real dos homens, vivendo seus conflitos e suas contradições!

Ora, para que se lê a Bíblia? Para permanecer no âmbito do Religioso (da Bíblia à Igreja) ou para fazer a passagem para o Político (da Bíblia à Sociedade)?

SBL Forum: More discussion of Faith-Based Scholarship

Many people have written to Forum about Michael Fox’s article on Bible Scholarship and Faith-Based Study. In addition, Fox’s article has prompted discussions in the blogging community. Danny Zacharias has compiled an informal list of these discussions at Deinde.

—

Professor Fox argues that biblical scholarship, as true Wissenschaft, relies on evidence whose meaning and significance is not intentionally predetermined by the Weltanschauung of the scholar. Faith-based biblical study, which “deliberately imports extraneous, inviolable axioms” and does not ultimately rely on evidence, is therefore not real scholarship. The upshot of this view, according to Fox, is that “critical scholarship” can be differentiated from the ever-increasing litany of ethically suspect and/or ideologically motivated biblical interpretations. Although I sympathize with Fox’s ire toward interpretive solipsism and ethically repugnant fundamentalism, I find his positivistic conception of Bibelwissenschaft extremely problematic.

Fox’s claim that “scholarship rests on evidence” is essentially a reworked version of the positivist idea that meaning is linked to verifiability. For the positivist, an assertion is truly meaningful if and only if it is verifiable; similarly, for Fox, an interpretation is truly scholarship if and only if it pertains to verifiable evidence. Given Fox’s reliance on positivism, it should come as no surprise that his conception of scholarship displays the same self-referential incoherence that plagues the entire positivist project. Consider the claim that all “scholarship rests on evidence.” Is that a scholarly statement? If it is scholarly then, according to Fox, there should be some evidence to support it; but of course there can be no verifiable evidence for a normative claim like “scholarship rests on evidence.” Hence, Fox’s programmatic statement of what constitutes scholarship is not itself scholarly, but rather a non-scholarly import! Fox’s conception of Bible scholarship is therefore open to the exact same critique leveled against faith-based study: “Any discipline that deliberately imports extraneous, inviolable axioms into its work belongs [not] to the realm [of] scholarship.” And here the self-referential incoherence is clear: Scholarship, as Fox envisions it, does not belong to the realm of scholarship.

All of this is to say that Bibelwissenschafthas its own inviolable axioms and in no way constitutes a realm of scientific objectivity or “real” scholarship, as Fox imagines. The real question as I see it is not whether Wissenschaft is compatible with faith-based study, but whether we should strive for a scientific perspective on the Bible at all. What is gained by Fox’s Bibelwissenschaft? We certainly do not need it in order effectively to critique fundamentalist interpretations of scripture, nor is it required to combat those who “justify their biases by the rhetoric of postmodern self-indulgence.” Additionally, if we deny faith-based Bible study a place at the academic table, we run the risk of restricting the benefits of biblical scholarship to a relatively small esoteric group. I would much rather include faith-based study in the academy (within reason), so that we might confront harmful interpretations head-on.

Adam Wells, Yale University

Veja no biblioblog Café Apocalypsis a entrevista com Thomas L. Thompson, professor de Antigo Testamento na Universidade de Copenhague. Thompson é considerado um dos mais polêmicos “minimalistas” no campo da História de Israel. Pioneiro na guinada dada, ainda no final dos anos 60 do século XX, nos estudos do Pentateuco!

 

It is good to be back and provide you with one last interview. Thomas L. Thompson, OT professor at the University of Copenhagen, offers his thoughts on the relationship between faith and scholarship. I wanted to thank Jim West for suggesting that I contact both Dr. Thompson and Dr. Davies. I hope that I now have succeeded in providing a balance in the diversity of perspectives. Note: Dr. Thompson has slightly revised some of the questions (this explains the asterisks)

How would you describe the role of (***) faith as it relates to biblical scholarship? What are some presuppositions that you might have when it comes to the interpretative task? What are some advantages and pitfalls of evangelical views concerning scripture? + What does the church have to do with the academy and vice versa. ***= delete “personal”

I delete the adjective “personal” here as I find it inappropriate in the context of the professional functions of a university scholar. For a biblical scholar, the way that faith influences his professional obligations raise a very serious question concerning conflict of interests. To the extent that a university scholar accepts the guiding principles of a specific faith, he or she is incompetent in the performance of their work as scholars. To the extent that an institution presupposes such a commitment, it is, I believe, incompetent as a university. Accordingly, among the premises I hold as professor of theology is the need to investigate and analyze the bible and religion in accord with the critical principles of secular scholarship, what I have often described as “secular theology.” In my experience, secular theology or university scholarship in the field of biblical scholarship is incompatible with the premises of a faith-based scholarship, which belongs to the realm of apologetics, a pursuit which may have some legitimacy within the context of a particular faith community, but which in the public or “secular” sphere is inappropriate to both the civil service role of the university professor–and in direct conflict with open and critical scholarly discourse. The legitimacy of such apologetics–exploring the rationality of the intellectual foundations of faith–is limited to propaganda fidei, as Catholics used to call it.

If such conflicts of interest that a scholar has with faith-based understanding of religious texts are avoided, church, synagogue and mosque have much to learn from a secular theology, particularly in regard to their own efforts to control and lessen the violence and hatred which religious commitment is capable of commanding. They can use secular scholarship to struggle against the lies and hypocrisy of well-meant religious efforts to maintain a given religious tradition’s distortion and manipulation of the tradition. They can also be served by the perspectives with which secular scholarship takes up the task of exegesis, without being tied by traditional commitments to a particular understanding.

What are the *** pitfalls associated with a more “secular” brand of biblical scholarship? What are the some possible avenues of fruitful dialogue between “faith-based” and “secular” approaches in biblical scholarship? *** = deleted: “advantages and”

The apologetically based resistance to scholarship by faith-based teachers of bible can influence scholars to ignore the dynamics of struggles for sincerity that exist among many faith-based colleagues, as well as influence scholars to ignore the potential offence their scholarship might give to the feelings of believers, whose understanding of reality can be threatened by a secular perspective on issues felt to be sacred. While I hardly consider a “faith-based approach” as a legitimate approach to scholarship, the history of Catholic biblical studies over the last 70 years clearly shows that what begins in a faith-based project of study and enrichment can often end in solid contributions to secular scholarship.

Who would you considered to be stellar examples of evangelical scholarship? Who are some of the best examples of *** critical scholars? ***= deleted “mainstream”

Among evangelical scholars, the first name that comes to mind is Gustav Dalman, with his great work in 7 volumes, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. I also much admired William Albright–especially for his work in Semitics, though I found his faith-commitments were always so much in his way in both biblical and historical studies that his results were never trustworthy. Similarly, I find William Hallo’s work in Sumerian studies and his great anthology simply wonderful, but his contributions to biblical studies are in comparison both weak and insubstantial. Among critical scholars, I have much admired Kurt Galling (editor of the third edition of Religion in der Geschichte und Gegenwart, 5 vols. 1953), not only for his encyclopedic competence and integration of biblical, ancient near eastern and archaeological scholarship, but also because he shunned every form of pious distortion in scholarship. This was also a characteristic of Gösta Ahlström’s scholarship (A History of Palestine, 1993) which I much admired. Among living scholars, I much admire Jack Sasson (editor of CANE), not only for his similar integrity as a scholar, but also for his great sensitivity for the personal motivation of scholars–even those he disagreed with.

Any additional thoughts on this subject?

I find the issue terribly important, particularly as evangelical scholarship is undergoing a development that in many ways reminds me of what occurred among Catholic scholars in the 1950s and 1960s. More and more evangelical scholars have acquired competency–especially in the cognate fields of biblical scholarship–over the past generation and have shown themselves at times to be as competent (in the sense as above question 1) within these narrow fields as critical scholars generally. They now stand at a turning point where they are undergoing a very serious struggle for academic recognition which goes hand in hand with an equally serious struggle for academic integrity, which, for many of the individuals involved, is consonant with personal struggles of faith.

Veja no biblioblog Café Apocalypsis a entrevista com Philip R. Davies, da Universidade de Sheffield.

 

Emeritus research professor in OT at Sheffield University, Philip Davies, joins us today and offers some delightfully blunt answers to my questions. You may be interested to know that he is in the process of editing a book with Jacques Berlinerblau on this very topic. I am truly grateful that he has agreed to share his views.

How would you describe the role of personal faith as it relates to biblical scholarship? What are some presuppositions that you might have when it comes to the interpretative task? What are some advantages and pitfalls of evangelical views concerning scripture?

Like Michael Fox, I regard it as having no place in the overt practice, as having no methodological role in scholarship. But personal faiths of all kinds inhabit scholarly work and it is unwise to pretend they are not there as part of the psychology of the scholar or indeed of the cultural assumptions. One can’t make a neat separation between an objective ‘scholarship’ and the subjective scholars who produce it. But one can always be aware of this inevitable influence and try to ensure that its effects are recognised and monitored. Since scholarship is in my view a communal enterprise this task is best performed communally: we correct each other’s ‘faiths’ (which do not have to be religious ones). That is why it is so important that the community of biblical scholars is represented by as many different perspectives as possible.

My presuppositions are that every written communication conceals as much as it reveals and that in principle all literature is propaganda, i.e., designed to persuade. Resistance is necessary, though not necessarily hostile resistance. Resistance can even be sympathetic. But we must remember that criticism means independence from the claims and values of the text. If we can reach some kind of independence how can we be ‘critical’? I have prejudices in favour of minorities and victims of any kind of bullying; I dislike the kind of respect that some religions and religious believers claim for their beliefs. I do not see why religious belief should be treated any differently from other beliefs. By ‘belief’ I do not include opinions based on any kind of evidence or rational argument, and resist the notion that belief in science is of the same kind as religious belief.

The pitfalls of evangelical belief are numerous. I liken them to astrologists among astronomers. The only advantage is that those who hold them are at least interested in the Bible and think that studying it is a good thing. They also think it is important to speak as if the Bible has a contemporary relevance. All biblical scholars need people like that! And I agree with all of these propositions myself.

What are the advantages and pitfalls associated with a more “secular” brand of biblical scholarship? What does the church have to do with the academy and vice versa? What are the some possible avenues of fruitful dialogue between “faith-based” and “secular” approaches in biblical scholarship?

The advantages are that the bible comes out of the ghetto and can join the ranks of all great human intellectual and artistic achievements. Its power, in the wrong hands, to humiliate and destroy people, vividly documented over the last two millennia, can be broken without breaking its power to inspire (as well as to horrify!)

The church and academy seem to me to have two quite different uses for the Bible. Sermonizing, in any guise, is out of place in the academy while critical work is of little use in the church or synagogue. True, it can be used, to good effect, but its use seems always to me to be so partial and unbalanced that it amounts to abuse. Good scholarship is driven by doubt and usually ends in doubt. Churches also recognise doubt, but their role is surely to overcome it in some way, if only through ‘faith’ and not intellectual conviction. Can there be a fruitful dialogue? On the whole, I think not, except inside the heads of those scholars with a religious faith. The Christian perspective is, like the Jewish perspective, part of biblical studies, but only as part of the whole range of receptions. I do not see how a modern Jew or Christian can claim to have a better understanding of the Bible–honestly!

Who would you considered to be stellar examples of evangelical scholarship? Who are some of the best examples of mainstream critical scholars?

I like John Goldingay. He is the best I know. I also like Alan Millard. He is prepared to listen and argue and defend; he is certainly closer to me than to a clown like Ken Kitchen (I mean clown because he plays for laughs, though most of them are unintended). Of mainstream scholars my heroes are Gottwald, because of his honesty and self-awareness; Joseph Blenkinsopp whose knowledge and originality and range are unmatched; and the late Robert Carroll, who could destroy an opponent with ease yet without malice. Generally, I can get on with anyone who has a sense of humour and in the end accepts that we have no idea what life is for or about, if indeed it has any purpose other than the one we construct.

Any additional thoughts on this subject?

It’s a pity that biblical scholars are in a discipline that has top deal with a large constituency of practitioners who have a religious attachment to it and a huge constituency outside with the same attachment. I would rather we carried on without work free from perennial questions about theology and what the bible means and whether it is historically true. Public misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of biblical scholarship is enormous and would not be tolerated in other academic disciplines. Ignorance, yes–that is often unavoidable. But ignorance and prejudice combined – ugh! If I didn’t like the Bible so much I’d be doing something else. Except that if I am honest there is a great opportunity for mischief here, and I love that. Mischief turns up more creative ideas than most other practices.

 

Sobre Philip R. Davies pode-se ler na Ayrton’s Biblical Page aqui, aqui e aqui.

Clique aqui primeiro e depois visite o blog Café Apocalypsis para ler as várias entrevistas feitas por Alan S. Bandy com seus convidados sobre o tema.

 

Faith Based Scholarship Interviews from Café Apocalypsis

Craig Blomberg (Monday, March 13, 2006)

Scot McKnight (Monday, March 13, 2006)

James Crossley (Friday, March 17, 2006)

Craig Evans (Monday, March 20, 2006)

Darrell Bock (Monday, March 20, 2006)

Mark Goodacre (Monday, March 20, 2006)

Peter Williams (Tuesday, March 21, 2006)

Peter Bolt (Tuesday, March 21, 2006)

Andreas Köstenberger (Thursday, March 23, 2006)

Michael Bird (Monday, March 27, 2006)

Philip Davies (Tuesday, March 28, 2006)

Thomas L. Thompson (Tuesday, April 04, 2006)

George Guthrie (Wednesday, April 12, 2006)

Há uma discussão em andamento sobre pesquisa acadêmica da Bíblia e fé, provocada pelo artigo de Michael Fox no Fórum SBL, sob o título Bible Scholarship and Faith-Based Study: My View.

 

Que de certa maneira se resume na seguinte posição:

In my view, faith-based study has no place in academic scholarship, whether the object of study is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or Homer. Faith-based study is a different realm of intellectual activity that can dip into Bible scholarship for its own purposes, but cannot contribute to it. I distinguish faith-based Bible study from the scholarship of persons who hold a personal faith. In our field, there are many religious individuals whose scholarship is secular and who introduce their faith only in distinctly religious forums.

Na minha opinião, o estudo baseado na fé não tem lugar na pesquisa acadêmica, seja o objeto de estudo a Bíblia, o Livro de Mórmon ou Homero. O estudo baseado na fé é um tipo diferente de atividade intelectual que pode mergulhar na pesquisa bíblica com seus objetivos específicos, mas não pode contribuir para a pesquisa acadêmica. Eu distingo o estudo bíblico baseado na fé da pesquisa de pessoas que possuem uma fé pessoal. Em nosso campo, há muitas pessoas religiosas cujos estudos são laicos e que introduzem sua fé apenas em fóruns claramente religiosos.

 

O texto completo do artigo de Michael Fox diz:

Recently, claims have been made for the legitimacy of faith-based scholarship in the forum of academic scholarship (on a related issue, see the recent FORUM article by Mary Bader and the responses to it). In my view, faith-based study has no place in academic scholarship, whether the object of study is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or Homer. Faith-based study is a different realm of intellectual activity that can dip into Bible scholarship for its own purposes, but cannot contribute to it. I distinguish faith-based Bible study from the scholarship of persons who hold a personal faith. In our field, there are many religious individuals whose scholarship is secular and who introduce their faith only in distinctly religious forums.

Faith-based study of the Bible certainly has its place—in synagogues, churches, and religious schools, where the Bible (and whatever other religious material one gives allegiance to) serves as a normative basis of moral inspiration or spiritual guidance. This kind of study is certainly important, but it is not scholarship—by which I mean Wissenschaft, a term lacking in English that can apply to the humanities as well as the hard sciences, even if the modes and possibilities of verification in each are very different. (It would be strange, I think, to speak of a “faith-based Wissenschaft.”)

Any discipline that deliberately imports extraneous, inviolable axioms into its work belongs to the realm of homiletics or spiritual enlightenment or moral guidance or whatnot, but not scholarship, whatever academic degrees its practitioners may hold. Scholarship rests on evidence. Faith, by definition, is belief when evidence is absent. “There can … be no faith concerning matters which are objects of rational knowledge, for knowledge excludes faith” (thus Aquinas, as paraphrased by the Enc. of Philosophy 3.165). And evidence must be accessible and meaningful apart from the unexaminable axioms, and it must not be merely generated by its own premises. (It is not evidence in favor of the Quran’s divine origin that millions of people believe it deeply, nor is it evidence of its inerrancy that the it proclaims itself to be “the Scripture whereof there is no doubt.”) To be sure, everyone has presuppositions and premises, but these are not inviolable. Indeed, it is the role of education to teach students how to recognize and test their premises and, when necessary, to reject them.

Faith-based Bible study is not part of scholarship even if some of its postulates turn out to be true. If scholarship, such as epigraphy and archaeology, should one day prove the existence of a Davidic empire, faith-based study will have had no part in the discovery (even if some epigraphers incidentally hold faith of one sort or another) because it starts with the conclusions it wishes to reach.

There is an atmosphere abroad in academia (loosely associated with postmodernisms) that tolerates and even encourages ideological scholarship and advocacy instruction. Some conservative religionists have picked this up. I have heard students, and read authors, who justify their biases by the rhetoric of postmodern self-indulgence. Since no one is viewpoint neutral and every one has presuppositions, why exclude Christian presuppositions? Why allow the premise of errancy but not of inerrancy? Such sophistry can be picked apart, but the climate does favor it.

The claim of faith-based Bible study to a place at the academic table takes a toll on the entire field of Bible scholarship. The reader or student of Bible scholarship is likely to suspect (or hope) that the author or teacher is moving toward a predetermined conclusion. Those who choose a faith-based approach should realize that they cannot expect the attention of those who don’t share their postulates. The reverse is not true. Scholars who are personally religious constantly draw on work by scholars who do not share their postulates. One of the great achievements of modern Bible scholarship is that it communicates across religious borders so easily that we usually do not know the beliefs of its practitioners.

Trained scholars quickly learn to recognize which authors and publications are governed by faith and tend to set them aside, not out of prejudice but out of an awareness that they are irrelevant to the scholarly enterprise. Sometimes it is worthwhile to go through a faith-motivated publication and pick out the wheat from the chaff, but time is limited.

The best thing for Bible appreciation is secular, academic, religiously-neutral hermeneutic. (I share Jacques Berlinerblau’s affirmation of the secular hermeneutic [The Secular Bible, Cambridge, 2005], review here, but not his ideas about what it constitutes or where it leads). Secular scholarship allows the Bible to be seen as a rich and vital mixture of texts from an ancient people in search of God and moral culture. Its humanness—and primitiveness—can allow us both to recognize and make allowances for some of its uglier moments (Lev 18:22, for example or Deut 20:10-20, or much of Joshua). These things would (in my view) be abhorrent coming from the Godhead, but tolerable when viewed (and dismissed) as products of human imperfection and imagination in an ancient historical context.

We are in a time when pseudo-scientific claims are demanding a place in the science curriculum, and biologists and zoologists cannot afford to ignore them. Similar voices wish to insert themselves into academic Bible scholarship, and serious adherents of Bibelwissenschaft should likewise offer opposition.

Michael V. Fox, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

 

Faith Based Scholarship Interviews from Café Apocalypsis

Craig Blomberg (Monday, March 13, 2006)

Scot McKnight (Monday, March 13, 2006)

James Crossley (Friday, March 17, 2006)

Craig Evans (Monday, March 20, 2006)

Darrell Bock (Monday, March 20, 2006)

Mark Goodacre (Monday, March 20, 2006)

Peter Williams (Tuesday, March 21, 2006)

Peter Bolt (Tuesday, March 21, 2006)

Andreas Köstenberger (Thursday, March 23, 2006)

Michael Bird (Monday, March 27, 2006)

Philip Davies (Tuesday, March 28, 2006)

Thomas L. Thompson (Tuesday, April 04, 2006)

George Guthrie (Wednesday, April 12, 2006)

A Introdução à S. Escritura compreende 2 horas semanais, no primeiro semestre de Teologia. Mais do que estudar o surgimento e o conteúdo dos vários livros bíblicos, a disciplina é voltada para a compreensão/apreensão de alguns métodos de leitura dos textos bíblicos. Esta opção se justifica, pois a introdução a cada um dos livros é feita a partir das disciplinas que abordam áreas específicas da Bíblia ao longo do curso de Teologia.

Um dos problemas típicos desta disciplina é a carga horária exígua que lhe é, em geral, atribuída. Até porque, ao tomar contato com a moderna metodologia de abordagem dos textos bíblicos, a desmontagem de noções ingênuas adquiridas na educação anterior e a dificuldade em abandonar certezas que beiram o fundamentalismo requerem tempo e paciência. Além disso, conseguir a convivência da criticidade que se vai progressivamente adquirindo em sala de aula com as necessidades pastorais dos envolvidos no processo de aprendizagem, exige a construção de uma linguagem hermenêutica adequada, outra questão espinhosa.

Por isso, uma tarefa que se impõe a quem se envereda por esse caminho, é a comparação e o confronto da teoria exegética crítica com as leituras cotidianas e costumeiras da Bíblia. Isto é feito pelos alunos, que coletam e analisam os dados necessários.

Costumo orientar este processo através de uma série de questões que são propostas para a análise de uma leitura bíblica feita no ambiente pastoral dos estudantes. De modo geral, peço que considerem três etapas:

• descrever a leitura feita e sua interpretação e/ou aplicação
• contextuar a leitura feita: ambiente, situação, tipo de público
• analisar a leitura feita: sua interpretação e/ou aplicação naquele contexto específico

Na última etapa, a análise, utilizando categorias sugeridas por Carlos Mesters em seu livro Flor sem defesa – veja bibliografia abaixo -, podem ser considerados:

• o texto bíblico lido e interpretado
• o con-texto: a comunidade que lê o texto
• o pré-texto: a sociedade na qual o leitor e/ou a comunidade vive

Do lado do texto, pode-se, por exemplo, perguntar:

• A leitura foi adequada aos destinatários? Conferir o nível de compreensão, reação, receptividade, nível cultural x vocabulário usado, conhecimento religioso x linguagem teológica
• A leitura foi coerente com o atual conhecimento científico (exegético) da Bíblia? Conferir a questão do contexto histórico, sentido do texto no conjunto do livro, objetivo do autor, recado dado pelo autor x recado atual…
• Que modelo hermenêutico foi usado? Aplicação direta do texto, colagem, semelhança, comparação, diferença, contradição?

Do lado do contexto, se indaga:

• Qual foi a função eclesial da leitura? Na comunidade em que foi feita, serviu a qual objetivo?
• A leitura foi coerente com leituras e/ou práticas anteriores? Reforçou? Provocou? Instruiu? Exortou? Informou? Ou seja: qual foi a “intenção do discurso”?

Do lado do pré-texto, há questões possíveis, como:

• Que visão de mundo, país, sociedade a leitura veiculou? Conferir o sub-texto, o não-dito, aquilo que é considerado natural
• Qual foi a função social da leitura? Na sociedade, país, cidade e classe social em que foi feita: serviu a qual objetivo?

Se o leitor, finalmente, me pergunta sobre a possibilidade de se fazer tudo isso em um semestre com apenas duas aulas teóricas por semana, respondo que essa é a meta… O objetivo será mais ou menos alcançado se o interessado “mergulhar” na bibliografia indicada e tiver uma atitude de vigilância hermenêutica constante na leitura dos textos bíblicos! Atitude que deverá (deveria?) manter pelo resto da vida…

I. Ementa
A disciplina privilegia o nascimento e a estruturação dos vários métodos de leitura da Sagrada Escritura, especialmente os modernos métodos histórico-críticos, socioantropológicos e populares.

II. Objetivos
Possibilita ao aluno a visualização das diversas problemáticas envolvidas na abordagem dos textos bíblicos no contexto e no pensamento contemporâneos.

III. Conteúdo Programático

1. A leitura histórico-crítica

• A crítica textual
• A crítica literária
• A crítica das formas
• A história da redação
• A história da tradição

2. A leitura socioantropológica

• Por que uma leitura socioantropológica da Bíblia?
• Origem e características do discurso sociológico
• Origem e características do discurso antropológico
• A Bíblia e a leitura socioantropológica
• Algumas dificuldades da leitura socioantropológica

3. A leitura popular

• Ler a vida com a ajuda da Bíblia
• A opção pelos pobres
• Da Bíblia à Sociedade: passagem para o Político

4. Oficina bíblica: leitura de textos selecionados

• Mc 6,30-44: a primeira multiplicação dos pães
• Lc 3,21-22: o batismo de Jesus
• Mt 2,1-12: a visita dos magos
• Jo 2,1-12: as bodas de Caná

 

IV. Bibliografia
Básica
BUSHELL, M. BibleWorks 6. Norfolk, VA: BibleWorks, 2003 (software para o estudo da Bíblia, com 93 versões da Bíblia em 29 línguas, incluindo o português, 12 textos nas línguas originais, 7 bancos de dados de morfologia bíblica, 6 léxicos e dicionários gregos, 4 léxicos e dicionários hebraicos, além de 18 outras ferramentas).

DA SILVA, A. J. Notas sobre alguns aspectos da leitura da Bíblia no Brasil hoje. REB, Petrópolis, v. 50, n. 197, p. 117-137, mar. 1990.

DE OLIVEIRA, E. M. et al. Métodos para ler a Bíblia. Estudos Bíblicos, Petrópolis, n. 32, 1991.

DIAS DA SILVA, C. M. com a colaboração de especialistas, Metodologia de exegese bíblica. São Paulo: Paulinas, 2000.

EGGER, W. Metodologia do Novo Testamento: introdução aos métodos lingüísticos e histórico-críticos. São Paulo: Loyola, 1994.

MESTERS, C. Flor sem defesa: uma explicação da Bíblia a partir do povo. 5. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1999.

Complementar
DA SILVA, A. J. A visita dos magos: Mt 2,1-12.

DA SILVA, A. J. Leitura socioantropológica da Bíblia Hebraica.

DA SILVA, A. J. Leitura socioantropológica do Novo Testamento.

DA SILVA, A. J. O discurso socioantropológico: origem e desenvolvimento.

DA SILVA, A. J. Por que milagres? O caso da multiplicação dos pães. Estudos Bíblicos, Petrópolis, n. 22, 1989, p. 43-53.

KONINGS, J. Sinopse dos evangelhos de Mateus, Marcos e Lucas e da Fonte Q. São Paulo: Loyola, 2005.

PONTIFÍCIA COMISSÃO BÍBLICA. A Interpretação da Bíblia na Igreja. São Paulo: Paulinas, 1994.

SIMIAN-YOFRE, H. (ed.) Metodologia do Antigo Testamento. São Paulo: Loyola, 2000.

TREBOLLE BARRERA, J. A Bíblia Judaica e a Bíblia Cristã: introdução à história da Bíblia. 2. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2000.

WEGNER, U. Exegese do Novo Testamento: manual de metodologia. 3. ed. São Leopoldo: Sinodal/Paulus, 2002.

ZENGER, E. et al. Introdução ao Antigo Testamento. São Paulo: Loyola, 2003.

Estou, nestes dias, preparando meus programas de aula do primeiro semestre de 2006. Começo a publicá-los no Observatório Bíblico. A intenção é de que possam servir, para além de meus alunos, a outras pessoas que, eventualmente, queiram ter uma noção de como se estuda a Bíblia em determinadas Faculdades de Teologia. Ou, pelo menos, parte da Bíblia, porque posso expor apenas os programas das disciplinas que leciono. Tomo aqui como referência os currículos do CEARP e da FTCR.

Quatro elementos serão levados em conta, em uma leitura da Bíblia que eu chamaria de sócio-histórica-redacional:

• contextos da época bíblica
• produção dos textos bíblicos
• contextos atuais
• leitores atuais dos textos

O sentido da Escritura, segundo este modelo, não está nem no nível dos contextos da época bíblica e/ou dos contextos atuais, nem no nível dos textos bíblicos ou da vivência dos leitores, mas na articulação que se forma entre a relação dos textos bíblicos com os seus contextos, por um lado, e entre os leitores atuais e seus contextos.

Ou seja: “Da Escritura não se esperam fórmulas a ‘copiar’, ou técnicas a ‘aplicar’. O que ela pode nos oferecer é antes algo como orientações, modelos, tipos, diretivas, princípios, inspirações, enfim, elementos que nos permitam adquirir, por nós mesmos, uma ‘competência hermenêutica’, dando-nos a possibilidade de julgar por nós mesmos, ‘segundo o senso do Cristo’, ou ‘de acordo com o Espírito’, das situações novas e imprevistas com as quais somos continuamente confrontados. As Escrituras cristãs não nos oferecem um was, mas um wie: uma maneira, um estilo, um espírito. Tal comportamento hermenêutico se situa a igual distância tanto da metafísica do sentido (positivismo) quanto da pletora das significações (biscateação). Ele nos dá a chance de jogar a sério a círculo hermenêutico, pois que é somente neste e por este jogo que o sentido pode despertar” explica BOFF, C. Teologia e Prática: Teologia do Político e suas mediações. 3. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1993, p. 266-267).

As disciplinas de Bíblia no curso de graduação em Teologia podem, segundo este modelo, ser classificadas em três áreas:

1. Disciplinas Contextuais:

• História de Israel (alternativa: História da época do Antigo Testamento e História da época do Novo Testamento)

2. Disciplinas Instrumentais:

• Introdução à S. Escritura (alternativa: Métodos de leitura dos textos bíblicos)
• Língua Hebraica Bíblica
• Língua Grega Bíblica

3. Disciplinas Exegéticas:

• Pentateuco
• Literatura Profética
• Literatura Deuteronomista
• Literatura Sapiencial
• Literatura Pós-Exílica
• Literatura Sinótica e Atos
• Literatura Paulina
• Literatura Joanina
• Apocalipse

—————————————————————————–

Destas disciplinas, leciono:

No primeiro semestre:

• História de Israel (CEARP – Ribeirão Preto) e História da época do Antigo Testamento (FTCR PUC-Campinas): 4 hs/sem.
• Introdução à S. Escritura (CEARP): 2 hs/sem.
• Literatura Profética (CEARP/FTCR): 4 hs/sem.
• Literatura Deuteronomista (CEARP): 2 hs/sem.

No segundo semestre:

• Língua Hebraica Bíblica (FTCR): 2 hs/sem.
• Pentateuco (CEARP/FTCR): 4 hs/sem.
• Literatura Pós-Exílica (CEARP): 4 hs/sem. e (FTCR): 2 hs/sem.