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: "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: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:58:54 -0700

"A major development in modern biblical study has been the discovery of
ancient Near
Eastern covenants. Ancient Hittite and Canaanite covenants have shown
interesting parallels
with the covenants of the Old Testament.
New insights into the meaning and use of biblical covenants have now come to
light.
Ancient covenant forms have also confirmed the integrity and Mosaic dating
of many parts of
the Pentateuch─a tremendous boon in answering the attacks of modernism.
Contrary to tired old
higher criticism that speculated a seventh century b.c. date, Deuteronomy is
now recognized as a
“treaty document” that could only issue from the time of Moses and Joshua."

"This interrelation of covenants in sacred history, according to his thesis,
grows out of
God’s plan to bring mankind back to the original design of creation."


Before addressing John's message, I'll comment on the above statements from
William Dumbrell, whom John uses for source in his messages. By googling
him, I found an article. He is not a biblical scholar, but what I would
call a biblicist, expressing his "biblical theology" through his paradigm of
presuppositions based on a particular POV of fundamentalist Christianity (I
am not proposing that therefore this POV is wrong). A true scholar reaches
out to all scholars in the particular field of study for "peer review"
whereas a biblicist reaches out for peer review among only those who hold
the same POV, so that the peers are only a small segment, those representing
the POV, and without even pretending to address the scholars in the field.
By way of contrasting example of a real scholar who also holds to a
particular POV as a presupposition or paradigm of theology, but does reach
out to all scholars and is accepted by them, is Joseph Fitzmyer, an RCC
theologian.

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.

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

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: 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.

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

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. As I
recall you mentioned Danker, and he is as I understand, very highly
respected in scholarship. You might even use the new BDAG, primarily Danker,
for your Greek words, including the LXX for "covenant". 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. The BDAG if very expensive, but I bought mine at a considerable
lower price when it first came out.

Richard.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page