MOJ and the Bible

I found Rob's question about why the Catholic Legal Theory project hasn't made more space for the Bible quite interesting.  In trying to answer for myself, I was struck by how my first impulse in trying to think through any sort of legal question from a CLT perspective is definitely to start with the index of some "secondary source", like the Compendium,  or the Himes collection, or (now that it's out) Recovering Self-Evident Truths.  I would never think of starting with the "original text," and I will often stop short of actually ever resorting to the "original text."  The couple of recent articles I've written on Catholic feminism do contain a fair number of direct Bible quotes, but all were filtered through Pope John Paul II's brilliant exposition of Jesus' relationships with the women in his life, in the encyclical Mulieris Dignitatem.

I don't think it's only because I don't know what's in the Bible -- though I'd hastily concede that a cradle Catholic like me most likely has only a fraction of the familiarity with the Bible that Rob's evangelical buddies have before they leave elementary school.  I think it's more because I don't have confidence that I can correctly discern all the layers of meaning that those words in the Bible contain on my own.  I think it's the same impulse that would lead me, if I were trying to figure out some aspect of a Constitutional law topic, to start with some general treatise or law review article from someone whose work I respect, rather than just opening up my pocket Constitution.

Is that the Catholic in me, or the lawyer in me, or the legal scholar in me, or just some personal quirk?  I don't know.  But it does strike me, when I really think about it, as maybe not a good thing.  At the very least, it is sort of odd.  Shouldn't the legal scholar in me want to check her conclusions against the ultimate authority -- the sacred scripture?  I honestly have no answer for why I find myself shying away from that impulse rather than being drawn to it.   

This train of thought reminds me of a book my brother brought to my attention recently, Tod Lindberg's The Political Teachings of Jesus.  Has anyone read it?  You can read an excerpt on the Sermon on the Mount here.  A sample:  "The Beatitudes provide a dizzying commentary designed to turn upside down the political and social world of the Roman Empire of Caesar Augustus and of the Jewish religious elite of Judea and Jerusalem. This is the opening move of a more drastic and fundamental reassessment of political and social affairs, applying not only to its own time but to all future times, down to our day."

Here are some reviews:

“What Tod Lindberg attempts to do here is, so to speak, bring Jesus down to earth by teasing out and separating from his other worldly or religious teachings those that concern the question of how life in this world can best be lived and how society can best be organized. It is a fascinating analysis, and it sheds a bright new light on the extent to which our own form of government is rooted in the law of the Old Testament as interpreted and modified by Jesus in the New.” — Norman Podhoretz, author of The Prophets: Who They Were, What They Are

“You will never read the Bible or hear a sermon the same way again after reading The Political Teachings of Jesus. Tod Lindberg outlines Jesus’s teachings for this world, not the next — for how we can and should strive for a global “community of goodwill.” It recovers the profound simplicity and power of the most fundamental Jesusian teaching: the freedom and equality of all human beings. In an age in which politics and religion are so often dangerously distorted and intertwined, this political teaching of one of our greatest religious figures could not be more timely.” — Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affaris, Princeton University; former president, American Society for International Law