Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

Tony,

Because the works you mention are not authoritative for faith at all.  If
the Bible were only as authoritative as these, it would not be
authoritative at all.  It is supremely authoritative for faith.

gfsomsel
________

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:12:14 -0400 "Tony Costa" <tmcos AT rogers.com>
writes:
> "You ask if the Bible as authoritative as Homer's Illiad, the Amarna
> Letters, Enuma Elish, or Gilgamesh.  Surely you jest.  There is no 
> way
> that the Bible is as authoritative as these works."
> 
> George, why can't the Bible be as authoritative as these works? On 
> what
> logical grounds do you assert that it can't be?
> 
> "The canon is the rule of faith.  But I must stress that it is the 
> rule of
> FAITH.  It is not the rule for ORTHO - DOXY.  Orthodoxy is gnostic 
> in
> origin, not Jewish or Christian. "
> 
> If orthodoxy (which by definition means "right opinion", "right 
> belief") is
> not the rule and is connected to gnosticism (!), then it is rather 
> odd that
> the Early Church Fathers used this term to distinguish heresy from 
> true
> doctrine which they called "orthodoxy". Morover, throughout the NT, 
> emphasis
> is placed on safe guarding "sound doctrine" (1 Tim.1:10; 6:3; 2 
> Tim.4:3;
> Titus 1:9; Titus 2:1) Especially significant is 2 Tim.4:3 (NIV), 
> "For the
> time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine."
> 
> Tony Costa
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>
> To: <tmcos AT rogers.com>
> Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 3:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Job & Sumer
> 
> 
> > You ask if the Bible as authoritative as Homer's Illiad, the 
> Amarna
> > Letters, Enuma Elish, or Gilgamesh.  Surely you jest.  There is no 
> way
> > that the Bible is as authoritative as these works.
> >
> > These other works are not authortative at all.  Homer is a great 
> work of
> > literature which undoubtedly has some relationship to history if 
> only a
> > tenuous one.  The Amarna Letters are somewhat historical in that 
> they
> > were at least trying to present their positions to the Pharaoh.  
> Enuma
> > Elish is the Babylonian mythology establishing Marduk as the head 
> of
> > their pantheon and might come closest to the Bible is genre.  
> Gilgamesh
> > may have a connection with history (as a legend attached to an 
> historical
> > person) but is not itself historical.  None of these, however, 
> are
> > authoritative for faith.
> >
> > The canon is the rule of faith.  But I must stress that it is the 
> rule of
> > FAITH.  It is not the rule for ORTHO - DOXY.  Orthodoxy is gnostic 
> in
> > origin, not Jewish or Christian.  If one only knew what he is, 
> namely a
> > little piece of the divine (according to gnosticism), he would be 
> OK.
> > The "Christian" version is  "If one would only think the right 
> thoughts:
> > (doctrine 1), (doctrine 2), (doctrine 3), . . . he will be OK.  
> This is
> > in fact anti-Christian.  I think it's also contrary to the Jewish 
> view,
> > but I'll leave that to those who hold that position to state.
> >
> > gfsomsel
> > _________
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:03:09 -0400 "Tony Costa" 
> <tmcos AT rogers.com>
> > writes:
> > > George, while you hold the Hebrew Bible and New Testament to be
> > > "authoritative", what do you mean by this? Are they just as
> > > authoritative as
> > > Homer's Illiad? The Amarna letters? Would you regard the Enuma 
> Elish
> > > as
> > > authoritative on par with Gen 1-2? Is the Epic of Gilgamesh just 
> as
> > > authoritative as the story of Noah in Gen 6-9? Why do choose 
> the
> > > biblical
> > > text  over contemporary writings of the time whether they be
> > > Canaanite,
> > > Babylonian or Assyrian? Is this question really one of 
> relativism?
> > > In other
> > > words, what do you believe constitutes authority in the Bible? 
> When
> > > you
> > > allude to the fact that the Bible need not "be authoritative 
> for
> > > science,
> > > history, geography, cosmogony, etc." are you implying that truth 
> and
> > > fact
> > > are trivial matters in the Bible? Does not the Bible also 
> contain
> > > element of
> > > history, geography and cosmogony?
> > >
> > > Tony Costa
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>
> > > To: <tmcos AT rogers.com>
> > > Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 2:31 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Job & Sumer
> > >
> > >
> > > > It may surprise some who have read my comments about 
> mythology
> > > and
> > > > literary criticism, but I myself consider the texts which form 
> the
> > > canon
> > > > of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament to be authoritative. 
>  I
> > > simply
> > > > don't require that they be authoritative for science, 
> history,
> > > geography,
> > > > cosmogony, etc.  If they are scientifically inaccurate by
> > > reflecting the
> > > > viewpoints of their time, so what?  If they are historically
> > > inaccurate
> > > > as being written at a time when the events were no longer
> > > well-known, so
> > > > what?  Are these things what they are meant to inculcate?  It
> > > seems to me
> > > > that such a view would reduce faith to a kind of knowledge -- 
> if
> > > you
> > > > "know" the right things, you're OK.  I view faith as a 
> trusting in
> > > God
> > > > for all things good which doesn't mean that I need to 
> correctly
> > > explain
> > > > them.  Thus it is not that anyone who doesn't accept these 
> texts
> > > as
> > > > historically accurate also doesn't accept them as 
> "authoratative
> > > [sic!]
> > > > and sacred text."
> > > >
> > > > gfsomsel
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >
> > >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 
>