corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
[Corpus-Paul] Rom 1:1-5, 16-17 and the impact of the Enlightenment
- From: "John Brand" <jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca>
- To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Rom 1:1-5, 16-17 and the impact of the Enlightenment
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:30:20 -0500
From: "meta"
<meta AT rraz.net>
To: "Corpus-Paul"
<corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re:
[Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
Date sent: Mon,
27 Sep 2004 17:05:48 -0700
John had written:
> "You do not then regard the Documentary Hypothesis as a
> presupposition?"
Richard responds:
Absolutely not! This is not a presupposition (which
> you equivocate), but rather a working hypothesis or theory, good until
> something better is either presented and supported, or until more
> evidence becomes available to convince of a better one. Numerous
> biblicists, some being scholars, reject this theory, but usually their
> objections are only revised theories of the same multi-source idea.
> Don't you see the difference between presupposition and working
> theory? Newton's laws of motions and forces were the best assumptions
> until Einstein showed up with better ones, right? Your
> presuppositions are not subject to change, and this is your problem.
John:
I'm snipping out part of our discussion in order to focus on what my particular 'problem'
is viz a vis the impact of the Enlightenment on the Biblical text. More particularly, I
want to examine the impact of the empirical method of David Hume on how we
interpret the relevance of the evangelion from a strictly modern POV as opposed to a
post-modern or existential POV. My purpose is to examine how true the following
statement of yours is in the Pauline context:
> Regarding the D[ocumentary] H[ypothesis], [John said]: "Note that
it is a theory but
it
> undermines the integrity of the text and developed out of a general
> skepticism of the enlightenment toward the supernatural."
[Richard] Yes it is a
> theory, but in the literary approach it shows the integrity of the
> text, rather than what might apparently may have been "made up" by
> someone (or group)making all this up and claiming it's from God--and
> we "sleuths" would discover this. And then your off-hand ad
hominem
> argument that it's bad because of skepticism, generated by that
> terrible enlightenment period. Sometimes its better to be a skeptic
> so you are forced to think critically for a change.
John:
Hume was skeptical of any non-verifiable truth. He was emphatic that
what could not
be judged by the empirical method was irrelevant or superstition. Does this have any
impact on the Biblical text? Does it enhance an appreciation for the text?
According to Romans 1:1-5, the evangelion is a fulfillment of the expectations of
the
Holy scriptures which would include the writings of Moses and the prophets. These
writings were clearly taken by Paul to be authentic, reliable texts of the writings of the
individual prophets and Moses in the time periods in which they were ostensibly written.
What I mean by ostensibly is that when Isaiah says the vision concerning Judah and
Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah
et al, Paul takes
the book of Isaiah to be a document written in the eighth century BCE. According to the
empirical method of David Hume, prophesying the coming of Cyrus as a righteous
servant in the eighth century is not verifiable or relevant. It is posited by Graf-
Welhaussen that Isaiah was a compilation of the Second Temple Period for reasons such
as this which arises from the empirical method. We have to conclude, therefore, that
whatever the evangelion is, it is not to be related to any real prophet.
What is the evangelion? According to v 3 it regards Gods Son. This must be
taken to
be irrelevant and superstitious. As to his human nature he was a descendant of David.
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
couldnt have happened. The whole matter must have been made up after the fact.
So what do we have as far as an evangelion, so far. Nothing.
With that nothing, we move to v16,17: I am not ashamed of the evangelion (which at
this point has no content whatsoever) because it is the power of God for the salvation of
everyone who believes. If the evangelion has no content, there is nothing that it can do
in terms of what salvation Paul is claiming.
Your concluding remark in the paragraph above says sometimes it is better to
be a
skeptic so you are forced to think critically for a change.
I am not clear on how your critical thinking is involved as far as your syllogism
is
concerned since you allege in the previous sentences of the paragraph that the
enlightenment period demonstrates the integrity of the text. The text has no integrity nor
do its authors according to a pristine empirical method.
As our conversation continues, I intend to address the following questions:
>
Richard:
> John, there's no use picking on the lesser problems, such as in
> lexicography or what "life for life" might mean in the biblical sense,
> and deal with your major task: which is to support your supernatural
> revelation of truth: How do you support this in your own mind? From
> what God told you in a vision? Or a natural inclination you have from
> your religious experience or insight? Or what the Church says? What
> makes yours better than some of the others--Islamists for example, or
> Hindus, or even the god-less Buddhists?
John Brand
B.A. Bib Stu (Providence College, Otterburne, MB, Canada, 1980)
M.Min. (Providence Seminary, 1991)
jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca
-
Re: Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
, (continued)
- Re: Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant, meta, 09/20/2004
- RE: Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant, Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D., 09/21/2004
- RE: Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant, John Brand, 09/21/2004
- Re: Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant, meta, 09/21/2004
- [Corpus-Paul] Romans 4/Galatians 3 Obligation and the Covenant, John Brand, 09/22/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Romans 4/Galatians 3 Obligation and the Covenant, meta, 09/22/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
meta, 09/22/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
John Brand, 09/27/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant, meta, 09/27/2004
- [Corpus-Paul] Rom 1:1-5, 16-17 and the impact of the Enlightenment, John Brand, 09/29/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Rom 1:1-5, 16-17 and the impact of the Enlightenment, meta, 09/30/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Rom 1:1-5, 16-17 and the impact of the Enlightenment, John Brand, 09/30/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
John Brand, 09/27/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.