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: "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: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:32:17 -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 22:32:55 -0700

> John I appreciate your response, but it is apparent that you
> misunderstand and mischaracterized my views,

John:
I certainly do not want to misconstrue what you are attempting to
communicate. However, allow me to continue to press for clarity. I
think that it will be useful for you in any event to consider how you
are coming across. Also, I hope that you do not hear me denigrating
your vehicle(s). I am pressing you for some form of consistency in
your own deconstruction of the vehicles of others. It appears to be
inconsistent for you to in anyway fall back on Graf-Welhaussen in
deconstructing or rejecting my views if you do not hold to Graf-
Welhaussen yourself but some modified and undefined derivative of the
Documentary Hypothesis. Similarly, if you do not consistently hold to
any vehicle, you should not be using a vehicle here and a vehicle
there for deconstructing my vehicle. This point especially when I use
the one vehicle or the other in my rebuttal and you return the
implication that my use is illegitimate. Lastly, I am not sure how
you avoid solipsism in a methodology that is undefined and
inconsistent. This, of course, is your business but it is frustrating
in my communication with you.

> 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:
Here is your statement:

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:
It is probably a matter of interpretation but that last question can
be construed as a request for comparison. Certainly a comparison
would suffice as an answer IMO (or should). I am at a loss to see a
demonstration of commonalities among religions in your question. I
certainly advocate the comparative/contrastive method as it tends to
highlight the distinctions among various schools of thought and bring
out the rich colors as well as the deficiencies of one's own thought.

> 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:
You misread me if you think that I am trying to paint Buddhism with
one brush. My point is that Three Vehicle Buddhism holds to the
thought that one should use the Hinayana to move through the
polarities of Fear and Desire toward Nirvana and the Mahayana to move
back into the pain that is caused by these in order to bring healing.
More importantly, my point is that cannot switch boats midstream and
make it to the other side. Your response is as follows:
>
> 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: 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.

John:
I read you to be disagreeing with Three Vehicle Buddhism and the need
for commitment to a vehicle. You aptly have demonstrated both your
commitment to a lack of commitment in terms of vehicle (the point
that I was making BTW) and your rejection of extremes. However, I
agree with Three Vehicle Buddhism in terms of the need to move
(contrary to but respectful of your position) from Fear and Desire
toward freedom or emancipation from these.

Richard:
Probably you have read the excellent
> novel "Siddhartha." Mahayana is the predominant school, and
Advaita
> Vedanta within that.

John:
No my sources are Joseph Campbell "The Way to Enlightenment:
Buddhism" in "Transformation of Myth Through Time" (Harper and Row
Publishers, 1990), 'Buddha' by Michael Carrithers (Oxford University
Press, 1983), M. Scott Peck 'The Road Less Traveled' (London: Arrow
Books, 1990), and personal conversation with a friend who embraces
Buddhist thought.
>
> 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,"

John:
My point is that you are not stuck with any one 'vehicle.' Also, you
use a vehicle to deconstruct my position but claim not to hold so
consistently to the vehicle when I use it in my rebuttal. This is my
frustration.

Richard:
and my analysis
> of Dumbrell was not so much deductive as it is inductive to show
the
> absurdity of his inferences.

John:
You used the ad hominem fallacy of irrelevance in that you pointed
out that he was a Biblicist (without backing up this premise) with a
theological agenda (ad hominem) which you did not define. I don't
find that particular method of argumentation convincing any more than
the use of the same argument by Reformed Scholars when I quoted
Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall' to point out the compromise of medieval
Christianity. The response was that Gibbon is an atheist and,
therefore, should not be granted much credibility in his criticism of
Christianity.

Richard:
> 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:
Here is how I have approached Graf-Welhaussen:

As a benchmark, let's consider the following summary according to
Stuart (Commentary on Hosea-Jonah in the Word Biblical Commentary
series) of most scholarship on the OT since Wellhausen's 'Prolegomena
to the History of Israel' (1883):

"… the OT prophets were creatively original, conceiving on a
perspective on history and producing interpretations of Israel's
behavior largely 'de novo,' without full written or oral legal-
covenantal traditions as guidelines. By such a view, the prophets'
legal-covenantal ideas grew up during and as a result of their
creative activity, gained a decisive position in orthodox Yahwist
Israelite circles, and eventuated in the composition of the
deuteronomic (D) and priestly (P) law codes in the seventh and sixth-
fifth centuries B.C, respectively. In other words, as preachers
prior to the composition of law, the OT prophets were in effect the
inventors of biblical social ethics and to some extent personal
ethics as well, and the creators of most of the covenantal ideals
later systematized into what is now the bulk of the Pentateuch." (p,
xxxi)

These assumptions are reflected by Samuel R. Driver, for example,
'The pre-Exilic period shows no indications of P being in operation'
[S.R. Driver Introduction to the Literature of the OT (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, 136)]. And they are reflected by
Wellhausen: 'the so-called Mosaic Theocracy … nowhere suits the
circumstances of the earlier periods. The prophets, even in their
most ideal delineation of the Israelite state as it ought to be have
not the faintest shadow of an idea [of the Mosaic Theocracy]; [it is]
so to speak, a perfect fit for post-exilian Judaism, and had its
actuality only there' [Prolegomena to the History of Israel
(Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1885), p. 151].

I have found the analysis of Oswald T. Allis helpful in 'The Five
Books of Moses' (Philadpephia: The Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1969, 196-201) quoted in Josh McDowell 'More Evidence
that Demands a Verdict' (San Bernadino: Here's Life Publishers, Inc.,
1981, 111). Allis looks broadly at the pre-Exilic and post-Exilic
periods and outlines the following differences:

Features present in P, but absent from the post-exilic period:

- Tabernacle
- Ark, ten commandments, Urim and Thummim
- Day of Atonement
- Cities of Refuge
- Test of Adultery by Ordeal
- Wave Offerings
- Korban

Features present in P and in the pre-exilic period, but absent from
the post-exilic period:

- Circumcision, which is heavily emphasised in pre-exilic Joshua and
1 and 2 Samuel
- Significance of blood
- Leprosy
- Nazarites
- Various offerings

Features present in P and in both periods:

- Sabbath
- Passover
- Feast of Unleavened Bread
- Feast of Tabernacles

Features absent from P, yet prominent in post-exilic period:

- Divine name: `Yahweh of Hosts' - 86 times in post-exilic authors
- Singing and music as central in worship
- Scribes
- Use of sackcloth
- Designation of central sanctuary as the `temple'
- City of Jerusalem

Allis concludes: 'the claim that the Priest Code fits the post-exilic
period like a glove is as little justified as the claim that it does
not fit the pre-exilic period' (Allis, 201).

The pre-Christian (OT) textual tradition has been described as
prophetic, according to Willis J. Beecher ['The Prophets and the
Promise,' (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1905)]. He suggests that
'the Biblical presentation of the history of the prophets is in very
clearly marked periods:

1. Pre-Samuel with subordinates:

a. the pre-Abrahamic (Enoch, according to Jude 14; and holy prophets
from the beginning of the world, according to Luke 1:70; and Acts
3:21)
b. the patriarachal,
c. the times of the exodus,
d. and the times of the judges before Samuel.

2. From Samuel to the close of the OT:

a. Samuel, David and Nathan are prominent,
b. Elijah and Elisha
c. Isaiah
d. Jeremiah
e. Exilian prophets
f. Post-Exilian prophets

More recent scholarship (see Schniedewind, 1995 below) adds a third,
transitional period which is important for understanding the
composition of the history of Israel and the observations of
Wellhausen and Allis:

3. The Second Temple Period where he would include:

a. Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah
b. Post-Exilian prophets

I see genres in the biblical literature with definitive agendas in
the various Stages or Periods of prophecy. Is there merit in the
notion that this is all a complete fabrication of the Second Temple
Period? There is a reworking and editing of previous history
motivated by deeply held religious convictions. However, as we widen
the net of perspectives to include the other Biblical perspectives we
are able to see a variety of competing theologies which gives us a
range of options within a definitive scope. In the NT, the Gospel
writers are 'inspired' authors who work with various sources to
compile what they consider a 'true' account of the life and message
of Jesus. The range of options that result is staggering (some 80
Gospel accounts in total). However, we can organize these accounts
into categories and come up with similar theologies as in the case of
the OT history. The OT history as told from the perspectives of its
various 'inspired' authors can be compared with the commentary of
Jesus in the NT gospels from the variety of theological perspectives
that we delineate (essentially, Gnostic versus anti-Gnostic).
Further, in the broader picture of world history we are able to judge
the relative merits of these various historical accounts.

I have integrated the above studies by Beecher and Allis with Arnold
Toynbee (A Study of History, Mankind and Mother Earth). The
Patriarchal Period is shown in the biblical texts to arise out of the
Sumero-Akkadian religious system, or more specifically, from the
kingdoms of Babel, Erech, Accad and Calneh (Genesis 10:10). Thus,
according to the biblical tradition and for the sake of our broader
discussion, the Sumero-Akkadian civilization arose out of the family
of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth who were the heirs of the earlier
antediluvian tradition represented in the writings of Enoch.

The emergence of the Summero-Akkadian Civilization is dealt with by
Toynbee ('Mankind and Mother Earth') in his chapter 'The Indian
(Hindu) Civilization, c. 1000-600 BC' where he explains that there
are two distinct genres of Indian literature: the Vedas, and the
Brahmanas. He says that these are not unique to the Hindu
civilization; 'there are parallels to them in the religious
literature, oral or written, of other archaic societies' (p. 142).
These are not datable but he does suggest that the Vedas were the
earlier and the Brahmanas were the later.

The Vedas consist mainly of various rituals designed to persuade the
gods to fulfill their worshippers' wishes. The Hindu gods, according
to Toynbee, were probably a development of the Sumero-Akkadian
civilization as were the Hittite, Greek, and Scandanvian gods, all of
whom are arranged in a pantheon. Toynbee notes that this use of
ritual has for many peoples been the end as well as the beginning of
their religious history. However, in the Aranyakas and the Upanishads
the Hindus went on to 'probe the mystery of the Universe in which a
human being awakens to consciousness' (p. 142). Thus, the first stage
is concerned chiefly with the external side of religion while the
second stage turns from ritual to meditation.

The characteristic Hindu social institution is caste. 'Varna,' the
Sanskrit word that has been translated 'caste' in modern Western
languages means 'color.' Toynbee suggests that there is an indication
that the original occasion for the use of the word had to do with an
early apartheid system where the primary-Sanskirt-speaking invaders
sought to keep themselves segregated from the conquered native
population. The basis of the segregation, originally, must have been
that the invaders differed from the conquered in the color of their
skin as well as in manners and customs. The reason for the rigidity
of the system was likely the minority status of the invaders as
compared with the more numerous natives. Also, the Aryans were the
barbarians and, thus, outclassed by the natives who were the heirs of
the Indus civilization (p. 142)

As we see in other societies who practice this kind of segregation
(and Second Temple Judaism is a classic, biblical, example), the
attempt to maintain a rigorous segregation of the conquerors from the
conquered had its own effect on the internal structure of the Aryan
community itself. Initially, the division of the community was three:
The priests, the warriors, and the commoners [the parallel here to
Plato's Philospher-King, Warrior and Business class is striking].
These classes were, originally, hereditary among the Aryas; however,
once this group as a whole became the conquerors, the internal caste
divisions within these classes became as ultra-rigid as the initial
division between the Aryas and the natives. This eventuated in
numerous sub-castes within the each of these castes.

Toynbee notes that Aryas (barbarians) descended upon India from the
Eurasian steppe and, probably, settled in the Indus basin which is,
likely, where the Vedas would have been composed.

The conquering of the more civilized by barbarian invaders is very
common in ANE history. Contemporary with the Biblical chronology of
Abrahamic times (2500-2300 BCE), the Akkadians are a mountain people
who move down into the Mesopotamian Valley and assume a dominant role
(Sargon the Great). He moves the area more toward a national or
imperial system and away from the confederation system of the
Sumerians (the third stage is the Empire). A confederacy is a group
of independent city-states bound together by a loose form of
government. An 'ensi' controls a city and the surrounding countryside
and would meet together with other ensis in a type of counsel. These
local city-states also have a local diety who meets in the same kind
of counsel called a pantheon. As trouble arises and threatens the
confederacy a hero is elected who leads the affiliation into battle
and, if he is successful, becomes the 'President Pro-Tem' or chief
ensi. This is reflected in the myths (i.e. Enuma Elish).

The confederacy bound together by a loose form of government is
exactly what we see in the pre-Davidic times of the Judges. The
Judges are similar in their emergence and role as the Chief Ensis of
the surrounding civilizations. The Biblical history puts the creation
of a Law Code before the settlement in Canaan and the history of the
Judges. This corresponds to what we see in the Law Period of
Hammurabi

When we look at t/he Biblical history of Judges through II Kings, we
can understand the emphasis upon separation from the surrounding
nations in terms of devotion to the cult as the reflection of a
writer who is experiencing the Exile (see II Kings 25:27 and the
reference to the 37th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin). According
to the history of Joshua, the sons of Israel are the barbarians who
invade Palestine and attempt to set up a distinct society. The
Deuteronomic historian explains the exile to be the result of
syncretism with the religious systems around Israel according to the
pattern that we see in Judges: Sin, Judgment, Deliverance and Rest.
YHWH delivers the nation over the other gods so that they will cry
out to him in repentance and he can heal them or bring them back to
himself and his original purpose in the covenant with Abraham:
Abraham is to model justice as a means of becoming a blessing to the
other families of the earth (see Genesis 18:18 'for I know that he
will teach his sons judgment and justice that … YHWH may bring upon
[Abraham] all that he has promised,' for example)

IMO the history of Judges through Samuel/Kings can be regarded as a
distinct genre from Chronicles. The history of Judges anticipates a
king and blames the lack of unity in the confederacy on the lack of a
king. For example: 'in those days there was no king in Israel. Every
man did what was right in his own eyes' (Judges 17:6 and 21:25).
Samuel/Kings continues in this genre by showing how the kingdom of
Israel develops. It pays special attention to the fact that YHWH does
not want a hereditary line of kings to develop but grants this as a
concession to the people (see 1 Samuel 8). There is a tension in the
narrative between the old school prophets originating in Shiloh and
the newly elected regime of the Davidic kings.

In contrast, Chronicles emphasizes the 'House of David' and the
centralized cult at Jerusalem. David is the cult founder and temple
builder. In order to highlight or glorify David's achievements for
the post-Exilic community, it reinterprets the history of
Samuel/Kings through recontextualization and editing of the pre-
exilian history.

It is not unusual in terms of world history, for a writer to rework a
former history. For example, note how Euripides fabricates an end to
the Orestia of Aeschylus and Homer by reuniting Orestes with his
sister, Iphigenia. As well, there is a last minute rescue of
Iphigenia from the hands of Agamemnon by Athena. Artemis deceives the
on-lookers and substitutes a deer in place of Iphigenia (see
Euripides' 'Iphiginia in Taurus' and, for an interesting contemporary
development compare Goethe's 'Iphigenia in Taurus').

Careful analysis of the Biblical text shows that the latitude enjoyed
by the Greek poets is not enjoyed by Israelite authors. As a case in
point, note how the Chronicler ignores the Bathsheba incident while
the Deuteronomist (Samuel/Kings) is careful to note how the sin of
David with Bathsheba would result in YHWH raising 'evil against [him]
out of his own house' (2 Samuel 12:10). It is because of the son born
from Bathsheba, Solomon, that the kingdom of David is torn in two and
it is Ahijah the Shilohite who anoints Jeroboam king over the ten
northern tribes (II Kings 11:29). I underline Ahijah's hometown of
Shiloh because Shiloh was the place from which David had brought the
ark to Jerusalem; Shiloh was the place where Samuel received his call
from YHWH, etc.. The Deuteronomist does not show the same keen
interest in establishing Jerusalem as the center of the cult that we
see in Chronicles. His primary focus is to demonstrate how the whole
messy business of the exile came about which, for him, was the
syncretism of the Mosaic cult with the Baal/Asherah fertility cults
incurring the wrath of YHWH. The Chronicler is interested in focusing
on David as the cult founder and temple builder.

I use a comparison of Sennacherib's invasion of Judah in its three
biblical versions to help me see the distinct theologies of
Samuel/Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah (see 2 Kings 18:17-19:37 cf. 2
Chronicles 32:1-23 and Isaiah 36:1-37:38). I would recommend William
M. Schniedewind, 'The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to
Exegete in the Second Temple Period' (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1995) on the differences between Samuel/Kings and Chronicles.
There is a very good example of the reluctance of the Chronicler to
taint the glory of Jerusalem. 2 Kings 18:25 has the envoys from
Sennacherib saying 'Furthermore, have I come to attack and destroy
this place [i.e. Jerusalem] without word from YHWH. YHWH, himself,
told me to march against this country and destroy it.' However, when
we look at the Chronicler's version of the speech, he leaves out this
part of the speech in order to emphasize Sennacherib's challenge to
YHWH and subsequent humbling (cf. 2 Chronicles 32:15). Isaiah, in
contrast to these two accounts, is more bold to say 'How then can
YHWH deliver Jerusalem from my hand?' (Isaiah 36:20). But, even more
telling of the theologies of Samuel/Kings and Chronicles versus
Isaiah is the inclusion of mention of the pact with Egypt in the
Isaiah account (Isaiah 36:6ff) something which Israel was forbidden
to do in the Deuteronomic covenant (Deuteronomy 17:16). Both
Samuel/Kings and Chronicles want to make the incident appear as a
challenge to Hezekiah's faithfulness to YHWH whereas Isaiah is not
interested in the cult, the king or the city; his call is for the
people to act justly (see Isaiah 1:11ff).

Another telling example is Chronicles use of 2 Kings 22:19b 'I said
concerning this place and concerning its inhabitants that they are to
be a desolation and a curse.' Chronicles (34:27) omits the phrase
'to be a desolation and a curse.' The 'Chronicler could not tolerate
calling Jerusalem cursed. Even more to the point, the Chronicler
probably understood the 'place' to be the temple [a catchword for the
Chronicler from "at the 'place' which David established" of 2
Chronicles 3:1 (cf. 22:1)]' (Schniedewind, 139). By recontextualizing
and reinterpreting the pre-exilic history the Chronicler offers a
'radically different view of history' (Schniedewind, 138). He notes
that this is a precursor to the wealth of Jewish literature of the
Second Temple period which rewrites the Scriptures (noting Josephus's
'Antiquities of the Jews' and the book of Jubilees as examples.

Using the concept of the Venn diagram, we can delineate spheres or
domains of theology in Israel and outside of Israel to aid in our
analysis. For example, the creation days that we see in Enoch are
very different from the 'Theogony' of Hesiod. 'Chaos' is not a
goddess who produces Erebus or 'Night' and 'Day.' 'Earth' does not
lie with 'Heaven' to beget her children among whom is Kronos ('Time')
the god who castrates his father, 'Heaven,' and dominates the
pantheon. According to Plato's 'Timaeus,' Chaos was created by the
creator and Father of the universe as a 'blessed god' (this is
panentheism or 'God in everything'). But, according to Enoch, the
Creator only imparted his spirit to Mankind (as we see in the
Promethean/Athena story where Athena breathes into the clay figures
that Prometheus has made against the will of Zeus (who imprisons his
father Kronos in the underworld). From the descent of Enoch into
Sheol we have the Sumerian descent of Ishtar into the Underworld and
the adduction of Persephone by Hades, the god of the Underworld
(Greek) or the annual descent of Baal into Mot (Ugarit). From this
mythology comes the historical form Campbell calls the 'Way of the
Seeded Earth.' Enlightenment comes from the chthonic underworld
through the descent and return of the initiate (Hermetic). This
informs us in our judgment of the debate we encounter in the NT era.

> 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:
You are assuming here Richard which you have regularly corrected me
for doing (but I'll let it pass). My belief with reference to an
afterlife is not at issue IMO rather, how the Bible develops this
concept and how it has been developed by Augustine (City of God) to
control others is more the point.


> 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:
This is a matter of opinion, Richard. Joseph Campbell would differ on
with you on this for whatever that is worth to you.

> 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.

John:
But you do not hold to Graf-Welhaussen as it was originally posited;
therefore, you haven't delineated your own support for whatever
derivative of the hypothesis you hold complete with substantiation
from the text.

Richard:
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.


John:
This is very close to my own view and characteristic of what is going
on in the Axial Age except that I would take the Biblical text to be
dated according to the chronology that arises from the text so that
Isaiah precedes Zoroaster and, therefore, would posit that his
influence disseminates through the Persian Empire and Hellenism to
prepare for the coming of the mission to the Gentiles.

Richard:
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:
Here is a classic example of your lack of supporting premises for
your assertion: "Isaiah's suffering Servant is" (no support). "There
is nothing to indicate the future Jesus" (no support or analysis of
arguments in support of the view which is held by NT writers such as
Peter). Then you follow with the unsupported premise that there is
indication of Messiah and the conclusion that that messiah was Cyrus.
You ask me for evidence for my views but apparently expect me to be
satisfied with the lack of evidence for your views. This is 'boat
switching' in my view and your prerogative but nonetheless
frustrating.
>
> John: ....I would culminate with David Hume
>
> Richard: Why stop with Hume. That's a very sour note. At least
> consider Kant!

John:
We could go on to Kant but his views are largely rejected by the
empiricists who may embrace Existential thought.
>
> 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?

John:
No, they are later than Kierkegaard and are existentialists.

Ooops … out of time but we'll get back to this discussion.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page