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 22:32:55 -0700

John I appreciate your response, but it is apparent that you misunderstand
and mischaracterized my views, and I believe this is because I have not made
them perfectly clear. Thus, first please allow me to make some corrections
in this regard:

John: ...you have asked me, Richard, to compare my faith to that of
Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam as to its advantages and disadvantages.

Richard: John, I don't think I asked you to make this comparison. I was
just bringing in other religions to show their commonalities along with
Christianity. But this is no big deal.

John: You are perhaps familiar with the three vehicles posited by Buddhism:
The Hinayana, the Mahayana and the Tantrayana.

Richard: I appreciate your excellent knowledge of Buddhism, but I hasten to
point out that there is no one Buddhism, but rather that are amazingly
diverse conceptions.

John: ...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.

Richard: If there is one central precept characterizing all schools of
Buddhism, it is the Middle Way as a methodology in escaping suffering.
Although it is true that commitment is necessary, such commitment is not
comparable to Christian commitment. In Buddhism it is being commited to the
path of conquering suffering, wherever that may lead, whereas Christian
commitment is belief/faith in Jesus Christ as the ONLY path. There is no
belief/faith in Buddhism. The truth path is the middle way between
extremes. Commitment to a man believed to be God would be an extreme, a type
of commitment not acceptable in Buddhism. Thus to be committed to not
moving from one side to the other is the path to be taken to overcome
suffering, not commitment in any belief/faith or vehicle. Probably you have
read the excellent novel "Siddhartha." Mahayana is the predominant school,
and Advaita Vedanta within that.

John: 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....similar syllogism....

Richard: John I am not stuck with any one "vehicle," and my analysis of
Dumbrell was not so much deductive as it is inductive to show the absurdity
of his inferences.

John: when I attempt to build a you regard it as positivistic.

Richard: I did not regard your arguments as positivistic, but perhaps I am
not understanding what you mean by "positivistic", which certainly cannot be
associated with logical positivism. Positivistic simply means that positive
knowledge comes only from scientific methodology, radically in logical
positivism, based on restricted meaning.

John: 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.

Richard: I do not claim that the Torah is not a coherent whole, but only a
series of sources put together. I do claim that the Torah is an amazingly
coherent literary structure with very careful and artistic interweaving of
its various sources by an editor (or editors) in the process of redaction.
I do not accept the Graf-Welhaussen theory in toto, but rather its
refinement as perhaps represented in the very excellent short book, "The
Unity of the Bible," written by the scholar David Noel Freedman (as I
mentioned before, I also like Alter's book). I accept the JEPD hypothesis
as a generally acceptable theory of the biblical sources (generally in the
sense of the basic theory with nuanced differences among various scholars).
So let's get straight the definition of "presupposition" by this example. I
take this theory as a presupposition for further studies, all the while
trying to remain open-minded about its falsity, but as USEFUL for purposes
intended. I do not take it as a presupposition in the paradigm sense,
meaning what CONTROLS the way and what I study. In other words, I am not
bound to it. I am open to belief in the Torah (at least) having been
written in the 13th century by Moses, but I am not open very far.

John, I want to see the EVIDENCE. You have not shown me any evidence.
There is evidence that it was composed in the 2nd Temple period, probably
working of the traditions of JEPD, and putting them together through
redaction and interpolation. Believe me, I am not stuck on the JEPD theory,
and I do not by any means think this theory is necessary to show that Moses
did not write the Torah. Your last sentence above is absolutely completely
wrong. You said: "I don't mind if you choose Graf-Welhaussen as your
vehicle for interpretation." This theory is not a "vehicle" for
interpreting the Bible; it doesn't involve interpretation; it does involve
sources to be interpreted together in the composition of the text. Since
this is not my vehicle, I am not making any presupposition other than
"working hypothesis". I can do without it and just claim, as some scholars
do, that it is not valid, and that the Torah was just composed either in the
8th century (some), in the 5th century (some), or in the 3rd century (some),
but there is no evidence it was written by Moses, whereas there is
considerable evidence of later dates. You say: "I assume Moses to be the
author of a coherent whole [Torah]." You assume this, I don't assume
anything. I want evidence. To me, such assumption is best explained as
indoctrination, or perhaps Freudian analysis ("Civilization and Its
Discontents").

John: 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.

Richard: I am glad for you that you have solved the human problem. I
believe you are correct in your assessment of the human problem, although I
would extend it further, but I see your belief as only a way to control your
fears and satisfy your desires. We're all trying to solve the human
problems (plural), we all have fears, and we all have desires we want
satisfied. And we're all prejudiced at least to some extent. Now how do we
deal with this? You have stated your way. Mine is different. You are
going to live in an eternal bliss after you die, I will not. You can feel
comfortable waiting for this, I can't: I have to get busy and make my life
worthwhile while I'm living.

John: 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.

Richard: IMO no religion is better than another so long as religion is not
an excuse for killing or being ugly to people, and is a way of helping
people, and thereby channeling suffering, fear and desire, to purposes for
humanity. You mischaracterize Buddhism, as its very purpose is that "sense
of responsibility" which you relegate only to your belief. Mahayana does
not "bring us back into the pain..." It is relief from same.

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.

Richard: You are commenting on my comments about McGrath, but talk about my
premises. I am giving HIS argument, not mine. What I mean by arguing from
"POV of cherished belief" or paradigm, is that there is the absence of
evidence and rather obvious paradigmatic control. Where is the evidence?
If there is none, then it's paradigmatic control. Then the difference you
ask about is the matter of evidence. The "working hypothesis" has evidence.
Where is yours?

John: How does a 'working hypothesis' not control a person's
interpretation of the text?

Richard: It doesn't because of not having to, since it is held as what it
says, something to work with until something better is available. Are we
going to quibble over the word "control"? I don't follow you in your
following paragraph, except to say that it is IMO wrong to force an
interpretation of one segment of the Bible through another segment (unless
there is an obvious reference), but all the while it is right to understand
the whole as the total picture of Israel's tragic history and the reason
why, and to see its parts leading up to that conclusion. I do believe in
the basic unity (among great diversity) of the Bible, composed in
redactional form for a purpose: that of understanding the peoples' past for
the purpose of being committed to the future in avoidance of another such
tragedy. I see no NT in the OT, sorry. Isaiah's suffering servant is "Old
Israel", not Jesus. There is nothing there to indicate the future Jesus.
But there is indication of a messiah, the kind Israel wants for physical
restoration. That messiah was Cyrus.

John: ....I would culminate with David Hume

Richard: Why stop with Hume. That's a very sour note. At least consider
Kant!

John: 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.

Richard: You are leaving out Sarte, Heidegger, and others (secularists),
aren't you? And why would post-modernism following modernism be comparable?
Are you proposing some kind of historiography? BTW what do you think
post-modernism is? To your following comments, I agree that the Bible
should be understood from an existential framework, but not as metaphysics,
but rather as meaningful, much IMO the way Sartre explains existentialism
(although of course he doesn't accept the Bible). Yes, this is legitimate,
but what is not legitimate is propositions regarding fact, reason, and
metaphysics which you propose with the absence of evidence. You say: "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."
Yes of course this is true. He was a truly mystic visionary, much along the
line as William James analyzes in his "Varieties..." And this is what made
him great and the founder of the Christian religion (the one that survived
the numerous diversities).

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.

Richard: Exactly! I mentioned this because of its absurdity, but remember
that some Christians believe this. I think they are called the KJVers.

John: 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).

Richard: You need to give me an example that Paul understood this. Torah
does not claim to be written by Moses. Isaiah is referred to in that book
of his name, his remarks, etc., but would that be a claim that a person
named Isaiah committed it to writing? I am not saying he did not write it,
but just that who actually wrote it is not obvious. Also there is no claim
of any writing at a certain time. There are references of certain times,
but they could be (are) in the past (as for example the Book of Daniel).

John: 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: My point was and is that the dated period in a text is not
necessarily the date the text was written. Therefore, your premises are not
supported. The supporting evidence for the premise that the text was
written after the date referenced in it is considerable. If you need source
references for this, you don't have to look far. It is not presupposed, it
has evidence. Probably you think the Book of Daniel was written in the 8th
century since it refers to that time period, right? Would you be denying
the evidence of its being written in the 2nd century (150-160 according to
most scholars)?

John: ....Why the anomaly? Why not interpret Isaiah like we interpret
Hesiod or Heracleitus?

Richard: Interesting! John are you placing the Bible in the same category
as these? Claims that we these days call myths--same for the Bible? Or are
they correct, historically accurate too?

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?)

Richard: I don't see your point. Yes, there is forecasting of the future,
but based on expectation, not reading God's omniscient mind of knowing all
that will actually happen in the future. The former happens, the latter
does not happen. I don't think that is circular argument. I don't think
the text supports the prophecy argument you believe (which would be the
latter above). Can you show me this biblical support, as against
expectation. Expectations that turn out true (yes, Israel was conquered)
are written. Those that fail generally are not written. As the custom
went, the wrong prophets were executed.

John: ....Salvation cannot be had without a belief in a resurrected Christ.

Richard: Yes, this is the orthodox Christian view as I understand it. But
now you say, "as historically reliable documents of the life of Jesus of
Nazareth": but this doesn't follow. It could be story, hyperbole, or
inferred conclusions by early Christians. The result would be the same, so
long as it was believed to be the truth based on the essentials, death and
resurrection for the purpose. I totally disagree with the exclusivity,
since I am a pluralist, and also I doubt the exclusivity in Paul. I see
Paul describing the way to salvation, but not as the ONLY way. I do see
more of the only way in GJohn, but not completely. Hold in mind that
generally in all religions, exclusivity is a natural feeling. But GMatthew
is quite different from GJohn. Do you see "belief" or "faith" in Christ in
Matt. 25:31-46? I see action--in the world--doing the business of Jesus.

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: Yes, I agree. This is quite consonant with Sartre's view btw,
without a "vehicle," other than the mind itself.

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.

Richard: Ummm. OK.

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: Explain this please. Where is your "logical method"? I don't
think I was saying your argument is irrelevant otherwise.

John: Hopefully, you will understand my frustration as you read. Hume is
not 'the most radical POV,' he is the culmination of the Enlightenment.

Richard: Wrong! Possibly Kant was. Addressing your further statements, I
agree one's POV should not be tied to any philosophical period, or anyone
else.

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: OK, perhaps I read you wrong. Tell me again what is your critical
thinking, please.


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.

Richard: John, please explain this. How do you get from determination of
meanings to Dumbrell's hypothesis? Maybe I missed that. How do heqim and
berit lead to Dumbrell's biblical theology? Use some critical thinking if
you wish. And to your following statement, what is "the general boat"?

Boy we're really popping out these messages. I feel a bit ashamed of such
long posts on this list, as perhaps they should be off-list, especially
since no one else has entered the discussion. But it appears nothing else
is going on here anyhow.

Would someone please comment of whether this discussion is fruitful or even
interesting?

Richard Godwin, student-at-large.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page