corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
Re: [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: 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 dont 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 supernatural. 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 texts 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, neednt have supporting premises. This doesnt
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 Pauls 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
Dumbrells 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
-
RE: Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
, (continued)
- 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.