Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Rom 1:1-5, 16-17 and the impact of the Enlightenment

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "John Brand" <jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Rom 1:1-5, 16-17 and the impact of the Enlightenment
  • Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:46:15 -0500

From:            "meta" <meta AT rraz.net>
To:              "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject:         Re: [Corpus-Paul] Rom 1:1-5, 16-17 and the impact of the Enlightenment
Date sent:       Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:58:54 -0700

Hi, Richard et al

As this dialogue continues, I am finding a pattern repeating itself which I must address in order to save myself endless frustration in attempting to move toward an understanding of Paul in this particular dialogue.  I would like to illustrate the frustration from Buddhism since you have asked me, Richard, to compare my faith to that of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam as to its advantages and disadvantages.

You are perhaps familiar with the three vehicles posited by Buddhism: The Hinayana, the Mahayana and the Tantrayana. [Anyone not familiar with these can look at the following web page:

http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/vehicles.html]

‘Yana’ means ‘vehicle’ and has often been called a ‘boat’ or a ‘ferryboat.’  In the Buddhist philosophy one must move from a realm of the opposites of fear and desire to the Nirvana by the hina (small) vehicle. This means that one must commit oneself to the method or vehicle completely. A sage once said that in order to move from one side of the stream to the other, there must not be a switching of vehicles midstream. If one vehicle is chosen, one must stay in the vehicle until one gets to the other side.

Where I am frustrated, Richard, is in your use of vehicle in this discussion. You seem to be jumping from one to the other without any apparent pattern or rhyme or reason. For example, you use logical precision in your analysis of Alister McGrath, but when I attempt to build a similar syllogism you regard it as positivistic. You claim that you have no presuppositions yet you make assertions such as that regarding the books of Moses (i.e. that this is not a coherent whole but a series of sources redacted in the Second Temple Era) and at the same time claim that Graf-Welhaussen is not a presupposition but a working hypothesis. Yet, you have to be assuming Graf-Welhaussen in order to conclude that the writings of Moses were not written by him.

I don’t mind if you choose Graf-Welhaussen as your vehicle for interpretation. However, it is frustrating when you choose this vehicle and then turn around and tell me that you are not presupposing in your argument. Especially, when you claim that I am presupposing because I assume Moses to be the author of a coherent whole.

Whatever, approach you have to the text is your business. As far as my ‘problem’ is concerned, I think it is the human problem: to journey from Fear and Desire toward freedom from these (i.e. salvation). I have chosen a grammatical, historical interpretation of the text as my vehicle and it is getting me to where I want to go.

Which brings me to the pragmatic question of which is better: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Christianity?  The vehicles that get us from Fear and Desire to freedom matter little.  What matters is the Mahayana or the larger vehicle that brings us back into the pain of the world that is caused by Fear and Desire.  If my faith leads me to escape from these without any sense of responsibility to do something about the pain caused by Fear and Desire, it is useless.

On, then, to the argument before us:

Richard:
> Dumbrell's argument runs that due to the fact, from evidence, of
> contract/treaties throughout the ANE during the putative time of Moses
> (presumably either 15th or 13th century BCE, depending on which theory
> is accepted), therefore the contracts called covenants in the Bible
> show that the Bible was written during this early time and by Moses
> ("could only issue from the time of Moses and Joshua"). Furthermore,
> this shows that said biblical contracts issue from "God's plan......".
>  Thus the Bible is to be read from this biblical theology as the
> overall presupposition and paradigm. There is no way to enter into any
> disputation with anyone who argues from this POV of cherished belief,
> because that will control that person's thinking.

John:
I am a little confused here, Richard. You have argued that the Documentary Hypothesis is not a presupposition. It is, rather, a 'working hypothesis' much the same as Einstein's theory of relativity which is used as a construct to interpret data until a better construct or working hypothesis comes along. Without any premises to support your above argument that I can perceive you have stated that dating the writings of Moses during the 15th or 13th Centuries BCE is to argue from a 'POV of cherished belief' which controls the particular person's thinking who works from it.

What is the difference here between a belief in a particular date and authorship and a 'working hypothesis' regarding a documents composition and date? For the purposes of the syllogism that is developed to support particular conclusions both become axiomatic unless they are at first discussed for relative merit.. In my books this is 'presupposition' in both cases.

Richard:
> Now to John/s statements:  First he claims that everyone has a
> controlling POV (since he has one) in which to interpret all evidence.

John:
Again, I'm confused you are making a distinction between a 'controlling POV' and a 'working hypothesis' that I don't follow thus would say is a non sequitor. How does a 'working hypothesis' not control a person's interpretation of the text? For example, you have dismissed my following the various examples of covenant throughout the OT as inadequate because the story from your POV is not a continuous or homogenous unit but rather a number of different unrelated sources that are put together in the Second Temple Period (I am assuming that this is the option to the homogenous that you are proposing).  You asked me not to read the NT into the OT. When looking at the OT, you asked me not to read interpretations of the writings of Moses (i.e. Psalms or the prophets) into the writings of Moses. When reading the writings of Moses you asked me not to read chapter 6 of Genesis back into chapter 2.  And all of this is posited as a more dependable hermeneutic since (not the supporting premise which follows) the OT is not a homogenous whole (you have offered no evidence for this other than the fact that it is the best working hypothesis).

Richard:
>  First he categorizes controlling inclinations in terms of historical
> contexts of modernism and post-modernism or existentialism, fine for
> examination purposes, but not for presupposition purposes, that a
> person is one or the other.  John, I would like to see you carry this
> further.

John:
You are not following your own argument here, Richard. You responded to my point that the Enlightenment had produced skepticism toward the biblical text because of the assumptions regarding what is called ‘super’natural. In building my argument, I begin with the Enlightenment which I would culminate with David Hume though it began essentially with Voltaire and the French philosophes.  The existentialists come later starting with Soren Kierkegaard and are regarded as post-Enlightened thinkers just as post-modernists are regarded as coming after the modern period. The method that I am using is legitimate IMO since the empirical method discounts the resurrection, etc. and the existentialist and post- modernists start from that assumption and move into their approach from that point. Karl Jaspers is  emphatic: ‘There are no demons … there is no magic causality, no such thing as  sorcery … there nevertheless remains a deeply moving series of images’ [Karl Jaspers and Rudolph Bultman, Myth and Christianity (New York: Noonday Press,  1958). His point is that if we benefit from an existential assumption we must not  divorce the assumption from the existential framework when we come to interpret the Biblical text (as Bultmann does in Jaspers  view). 

Jaspers definition of faith is “only when we are free, and at the same time know that  our freedom is depends on transcendence – and this dependence is clearly realized  at the peak of freedom – does transcendence speak to us directly, in a way which  makes all other speech superficial and indirect” (ibid. p74). So while the Enlightenment proper dismisses the text as irrelevant, Jaspers and the existentialists see the text’s images (without any real content) being of value as conduits of transcendence. But the point must be kept clearly in mind that Paul claimed to have seen the risen Christ. He quotes the prophets as real men in real historical situations.

> Richard:
> John goes on to show that Paul: "According to Romans 1:1-5" takes the
> paradigm of "Holy Scriptures" as his presupposition for his arguments.
>  No contest, this is true.  But then John asserts that Paul understood
> the scripture (Tanakh) texts originated "in the time periods in which
> they were ostensibly written....What I mean by 'ostensibly'....Paul
> takes the book of Isaiah to be a document written in the eighth
> century BCE."  No need for me to comment on this, since "ostensible"
> could equally be that the Bible was either handed down by God, written
> by him, complete in its written form as the KJV, or that it was
> written in the 3rd century referring back to the 13th (or earlier)
> century.

John:
I am confused again, there is no empirical way (to assume this method) that the KJV was the original form of the text since it was written in the later half of the second millennium CE and the MSS of the NT are dated from the first century CE.  Also, the writings to which Paul refers claim to be written by certain men at certain times (I gave the example of Isaiah which you do not address in your dismissal). Because I show from the text the date of composition (i.e. during the reign of Hezekiah et al for Isaiah) my use of ostensibly has premises to support it whereas yours does not and, apparently, needn’t have supporting premises. This doesn’t make any sense … or is it supposed to make sense … is the point that there is no sense only nonsense? And how is this supposition supported? Is it presupposed?

> Richard:  Regardless of David Hume, philosophy generally would not
> consider "prophecy" meant as forcasting the future as to events which
> have not yet occurred as acceptable in any argument.

John:
Apparently, the argument from generality without any supporting examples is supposed to be regarded as proving the point that prophecy does not entail forecasting the future. If we are to go to someone more contemporaneous with Isaiah and the prophets, such as Hesiod, we see direct claims that the Muses gave him his inspiration ‘Muses of Pieria who give glory through song, come hither, tell of Zeus your father and chant his praise.’ (Works and Days). Hammurabi claims that Shamash commissioned him to write his Laws. Socrates claims to have been inspired by a eudaimon. All of the foregoing are taken as coherent wholes and interpreted from that perspective. Yet, when Isaiah says ‘the vision … which Isaiah … saw during the reign of Uzziah,’ et al, we take this to be impossible, give him a Second Temple Era date and assume that the text is incoherent. Why the anomaly? Why not interpret Isaiah like we interpret Hesiod or Heracleitus?

Richard:
By contrast, I
> think a "real prophet" in the Bible is not one who forecasts the
> future, but rather who tells the people that if they don't straighten
> up, this is what will happen to you, as we today might say if we don't
> fight the terrorists in their lands, then they will come to America to
> fight us on our land (whether or not this might really happen).

John:
You offer as supporting premises for your view of a ‘real prophet’ what you see as more practical in terms of current events. You have implied or stated that you are free from presuppositions and that your method enhances the biblical text yet you overlook the examples in the text where the prophets do forecast the future (i.e. Isaiah 41:21ff). This does not happen in real prophecy (a premise that is unsupported from the text itself); therefore, it did not happen (and this is not a circular argument?)
> John:   What is the evangelion? According to v 3 it regards God's Son.
> This must be taken to be irrelevant and superstitious.  [John is
> characterizing the opposing view]
>
> Richard:  Not at all.  Paul's belief is religious belief, meant to
> lead people to be transformed, the basic purpose of all religious
> beliefs, even Buddhism, and we must recognize and appreciate the
> significance on behalf of humanity (IMO).

John:
I think this is the important point: the evangelion is only a power to those who will trust its power (Hinayana/Mahayana). Strictly defined according to a grammatical historical method, Salvation cannot be had without a belief in a resurrected Christ.  This means that we take Paul’s testimony regarding his seeing the resurrected Lord at his word and read the narratives of the four apostles as historically reliable documents of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. This does not mean that a more mystical method will not gain one freedom from Fear and Desire. It does mean that one will not experience the salvation envisioned by the prophets in terms of the transformation of the Gentile community which in turn transform the Jewish community which in turn transform the other families of the earth which fulfills the Abrahamic covenant.
>
> John:  According to Finkelstien, David never existed since there is no
> empirical proof for his existence. Therefore, this statement is
> irrelevant as far as the evangelion is concerned. 'Through the Spirit
> of holiness'? This is superstition and, therefore, irrelevant. 'was
> declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the
> dead'? This couldn't have happened. The whole matter must have been
> made up after the fact.
>
> Richard:  Not at all.  Without getting Finkelstein from my bookcase, I
> don't think he said that David never existed, but rather that there is
> no evidence he existed: big difference from positive assertion and
> showing lack of evidence.  And no, it doesn't show it's all fiction.
> Even minimalists accept the mixture of historical fact with myth
> (Thompson and Lemche for example). If it wasn't David, it would be
> someone else, so what (perhaps without the exaggerations in the
> texts)?  It would be quite a stretch to deny that prophecy
> proliferated among these people with Neby of Babylonia and his hoard
> of troups camped close by, which is historically verified. The
> evangelion is there; it is not nothing.  It just isn't quite what John
> wants as total truth with total certainty.

John:
This is the point. It may be useful to help one get to freedom but it will not be useful to transform society because only those who are willing to make the existential leap, will benefit from this type of vehicle.

Richard:
"Dunamis" is a very
> prominent word in the writings of Paul, and any examination of
> religion shows the importance of its power, even sufficient to
> accomplish transformation, with or without asserting supernatural
> intervention.  There is no contesting that Paul was an exclusivist, as
> practically all original visionary/formers of all religions.

John:
However, I would not agree that he is exclusivist with reference to justification as we see in Romans 2. Anyone, who has become free from desire so that he loves, is justified. All will be judged according to their works which I take to be the works done through love.

> John:  The text has no integrity nor do its authors according to a
> pristine empirical method.
>
> Richard:  I don't think the "pristine" empirical method, evidently
> from your logical positivist interpretation, is relevant here.

John:
I would say that you are switching boats here. You use logical method in your analysis of McGrath and ask me to substantiate the merits of my own faith. When I do so using a logical method, you employ the ad hominem argument of irrelevance to dismiss it.

Richard:
As
> typical, apologists pick out the most radical POV with which to
> compare their own methodology.

John:
Hopefully, you will understand my frustration as you read. Hume is not ‘the most radical POV,’ he is the culmination of the Enlightenment. I said that I would be moving on to discuss the merits of my faith versus others and stated my premises clearly and the conclusion which does not change regardless of the responses to the Enlightenment: There is no literal, bodily resurrection in a modern or post-modern world period.

Richard:
While religion does work from sense
> experiences (the five senses), it focuses on thinking and imagination
> with is not, as "going beyond" sense experience, with the goal of
> finding truth in the broad areas of life meaning and practical
> accomplishments through action.  I am not a logical positivist, but
> still I use critical thinking, even from the posture of skepticism,
> and I do consider myself a Christian.

John:
You switch vehicles IMO and this is my point.  If you employ critical thinking, why should you reject it when others use it?

Richard:
>
> As to lexicography, any true scholar will examine all the evidence
> possible in determining meanings from an objective perspective without
> imputing his wish or need in the results, whether personal or that of
> a church.

John:
Here again, you switch boats.  If you want to follow a true historical method that examines ‘all’ the evidence possible in determining meanings from an objective perspective, then I think it is fair for me to assume that you will move through the occurrences of heqim and berit (patiently) in order to ascertain the merit of Dumbrell’s hypothesis. Instead, you tell me that you do not have the patience to move through pages and pages of reports.  It is fine to be impatient with long reports but it is not the same as examining all the evidence possible in determining meanings.

Richard:
So far, I think we agree with the meaning of bilateral
> contract or treaty (as common in the ANE), but I don't accept your
> biblical theology interpretation of that meaning.

John:
You have dismissed this from a general vantage point and refused to get into specific lexicographical analysis.  I am not asking you to get into specifics, but if you want to use the general boat, you have basis for making a credible judgment of my more specific analysis.


John Brand
B.A. Bib Stu (Providence College, Otterburne, MB, Canada, 1980)
M.Min. (Providence Seminary, 1991)
jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page