"Svendsen knows nothing. I, on the other hand, have studied Constitutional law under Charles Fried, Richard Fallon, and Larry Tribe, so the reader can do the math."
http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot.com/2006/12/christmas-comes-early.html
As far as "doing the math," Harvard Law doesn't seem to be much of a role model when it comes to the responsible handling of historical sources:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503493
"Um, I hate to point out the obvious, but the practice of law is more or less professional exegesis. My entire job is exegesis of documents in the context of a legal regime (which is really just a conceptual, cultural, and social framework for exegesis) using logical principles, and I learned that skill at one of the best schools, if not the best school, for teaching it."
Um, I hate to point out the obvious, but other issues aside (see above), the basic problem is that Prejean doesn't actually *do* any exegesis on the church fathers. Or the Bible. He only *talks* about exegesis. He talks *about* doing exegesis rather than *doing* what he talks about. He talks ad nauseum about his methods and assumptions, but when does he ever put them into practice where the church fathers are concerned? When have you ever seen him exegete a text of Scripture?
Where's the application? All talk and no performance.
"Because I have access to the works of the scholars in the field, and very little turns on the knowledge of primary languages. The scholars' arguments explain clearly what the reasoning is where they do, and the disputes are not over critical and translational issues, on which the understanding is generally unanimous. The issues under discussion here do not turn on such details."
Several problems:
1. Whenever he cites sources, you'll notice that his access to patristic scholarship is limited to English-language literature. Nothing in French or Russian or modern Greek.
So he has very limited access to the secondary literature. Western scholarship. Anglo-scholarship.
2. That's in addition to his inability to read the primary sources in the original.
So Prejean is seriously deficient in his access to both the primary and secondary sources.
3. Access to the secondary literature is not a substitute for access to the primary literature.
No one could be a patrologist who was unable to study the primary sources in the original.
4. One also wonders how much Prejean has read of the church fathers in translation. Is this the reason he can't reproduce any of their exegesis? Because he hasn't read them—even in translation? He's only read some of the secondary literature?
:::BRAAAPPP!!!:::
ReplyDeleteAs far as "doing the math," Harvard Law doesn't seem to be much of a role model when it comes to the responsible handling of historical sources
ReplyDeleteI don't condone irresponsibility from anyone, not Tribe, not Dershowitz, not Goodwin. It prevents one from following up on their work to see whether it is sensible or not. But the historians I cited, namely Donahue and Horwitz, have no reputation. Nor have Fried and Fallon been charges with plagiarism, nor would the charge of plagiarism even be pertintent to Tribe's skills in constitutional exegesis, which the extraordinary Kathleen Sullivan points out would not be diminished even if Tribe were a plagiarist. This is no kind of argument; it doesn't touch my position at any point. It is simply a red herring.
Um, I hate to point out the obvious, but other issues aside (see above), the basic problem is that Prejean doesn't actually *do* any exegesis on the church fathers. Or the Bible. He only *talks* about exegesis. He talks *about* doing exegesis rather than *doing* what he talks about. He talks ad nauseum about his methods and assumptions, but when does he ever put them into practice where the church fathers are concerned? When have you ever seen him exegete a text of Scripture?
I offer counter-exegesis for patristic passages, Church dogmatic pronouncements, and Scripture passages all of the time. Heck, I spent months doing exactly that for Jason Engwer, and all he (and you) did was to assert that I "had to" follow his exegetical methodology (namely, the GHM, giving everything and only what the GHM could adduce binding authority), which as I pointed out at the time was nonsense with respect to Scripture and Church dogmatic pronouncements. With respect to patristics, even his application of the GHM was defective, in addition to the defective concept of exegesis for giving authority to the Church, Engwer also erred significantly in his application of the GHM, the absurdity of which was pointed out by both PhilVaz and Dave Armstrong to no avail. When my opponent isn't going to be reasonable about taking my exegetical methodology seriously, then there isn't a point. You can gather from that why I don't bother to do so around here, even though I do so elsewhere. You're not going to goad me into a foolish confrontation by making hollow challenges that I have no reason to answer.
1. Whenever he cites sources, you'll notice that his access to patristic scholarship is limited to English-language literatue. Nothing in French or Russian or modern Greek.
So he has very limited access to the secondary literature. Western scholarship. Anglo-scholarship.
With a dictionary for the occasional bit of jargon, I read French well enough to follow the arguments, and I've got a couple of French-language works on my bookshelf in addition to reading several articles. For works conceded to be of major importance, I have no problem reading them. There has been such a boom in translation of Russian, Greek, and Romanian works in Orthodoxy, combined with the vast majority of scholars speaking English, that it's almost a non-factor to speak those languages. The only lacuna I would correct is not knowing German, but that isn't a huge limit in contemporary patristics. It's more of an inconvenience in medieval studies, although I don't even consider that a major hurdle in terms of understanding the overall profile of the scholarship.
2. That's in addition to his inability to read the primary sources in the original.
So Prejean is seriously deficient in his access to both the primary and secondary sources.
The conclusion is untrue, and I maintain that ability in the primary languages is pretty much irrelevant. Moreover, if Hays's standard were true, then the entire field would be inaccessible even to other scholars, who are not going to have equal linguistic expertise with the primary sources in question as the experts. The entire purpose of a scholarly discipline is to allow information to be shared WITHOUT everyone having to have the same primary expertise.
3. Access to the secondary literature is not a substitute for access to the primary literature.
No one could be a patrologist who was unable to study the primary sources in the original.
Since I'm not purporting to be a patrologist, but only an accurate reporter of what patrologists say, this is irrelevant.
4. One also wonders how much Prejean has read of the church fathers in translation. Is this the reason he can't reproduce any of their exegesis? Because he hasn't read them—even in translation? He's only read some of the secondary literature?
Certainly, in the case of Cyril, Athanasius, Ambrose, Hilary,Irenaeus, the Cappadocians, Maximus, Augustine, Leo, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Marius Victorinus, John Damascene, and several others, I have read a great deal in translation (in the case of Fathers with a limited oeuvre available, like Clement of Rome, I have typically read those as well). Even reviewing secondary literature, I ordinarily go back to the translation when certain passages are given particular significance for certain concepts. So you can put the suspicious conjecture to rest now; I've read the relevant works that are readily available in translation for the arguments I'm making.
Evidently, it's not enough to attack me personally and ignore my arguments. Now you have to make things up about me as well. It would seem that rhetoric on the level of Matthew Schultz is the best you can do, in which case you'd've done better to remain silent.
Re: Donahue and Horwitz, one obvious typo. They have no reputation for plagiarism; they obviously have impeccable reputations as historians.
ReplyDelete"I offer counter-exegesis for patristic passages, Church dogmatic pronouncements, and Scripture passages all of the time. Heck, I spent months doing exactly that for Jason Engwer, and all he (and you) did was to assert that I "had to" follow his exegetical methodology (namely, the GHM, giving everything and only what the GHM could adduce binding authority), which as I pointed out at the time was nonsense with respect to Scripture and Church dogmatic pronouncements."
ReplyDeleteMaybe you'd like to favor us with a few links to illustrate your contention. In all the interactions I've seen between you and Jason—and I've seen a lot—you never did any actual exegesis—either of Scripture or the church fathers. You simply went on and on about hermeneutics.
"You're not going to goad me into a foolish confrontation by making hollow challenges that I have no reason to answer."
Translation: when his bluff is called, Prejean kicks over the card table and stomps out of the room in a big huff.
"Certainly, in the case of Cyril, Athanasius, Ambrose, Hilary,Irenaeus, the Cappadocians, Maximus, Augustine, Leo, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Marius Victorinus, John Damascene, and several others, I have read a great deal in translation (in the case of Fathers with a limited oeuvre available, like Clement of Rome, I have typically read those as well). Even reviewing secondary literature, I ordinarily go back to the translation when certain passages are given particular significance for certain concepts. So you can put the suspicious conjecture to rest now; I've read the relevant works that are readily available in translation for the arguments I'm making."
If that is so, then why don't you reproduce their actual exegesis in reply to Svendsen? Where are the direct, verbatim quotes to support your contention?
We're still waiting for you to redeem all your verbal vouches. Even a small down-payment would lend credence to your claims.
"Svendsen knows nothing. I, on the other hand, have studied Constitutional law under Charles Fried, Richard Fallon, and Larry Tribe, so the reader can do the math."
ReplyDeleteSo what, are any of these men biblical scholars. You're in the same boat as Art Sippo. Sippo is a medical doctor. Where is his seminary training? He's the one that constantly bleats about the disqualification of others based on their academic qualifications, but where is Sippo's list of specialized degrees in biblical hermeneutics. Svenden's graduate level work specializes in NT exegesis correct?
"Um, I hate to point out the obvious, but the practice of law is more or less professional exegesis. My entire job is exegesis of documents in the context of a legal regime (which is really just a conceptual, cultural, and social framework for exegesis) using logical principles, and I learned that skill at one of the best schools, if not the best school, for teaching it."
Okay, then pick a NT passage for us and write an exegetical paper - the long way. That is, cite a minimum of 20 standard commentaries that you consider, and you have to be sure that you pick a balanced list of those with which you agree and disagree and disucuss them in detail and why you think they are right or wrong-not based on what another commentator says but what your own exegesis of the text in its raw form yields. Be sure to do an indepth study of the grammar and syntax in the original language(s) and explain how your conclusions flow from the grammar and syntax. Include references to the correct parallel texts, if any, with supporting exegesis. For example, why don't you exegete the texts on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ cited by John Piper and produce a parallel monograph refuting his conclusions in a similar form and style.
You see, biblcial exegeis and legal exegesis aren't in the same category.You may learn some parallel skills, but the subject matter is not at all the same.
In fact, I think I speak for Steve and Jason as well as myself when I agree with you on this statement, for you treat the biblical text like a Supreme Court decision, which you then read through a particular set of opinions like an ACLU lawyer. What we get from you isn't an analysis of the decision, it's the analysis of the opinions of others, usually and most often begging the question in your favor. You do then the same with the biblical text. You tell us what the Fathers, in your opinion, thought, not what the text itself in its raw form actually says. But this only pushes the question back a step. Why should we accept what you say about what the Fathers say? Why should we accept what the Fathers say, particularly since many times they contradict each other? As a Roman Catholic, pray tell us where is the list of infallibly interpreted texts along with their infallible interpretations produced by your communion?
So what, are any of these men biblical scholars. You're in the same boat as Art Sippo. Sippo is a medical doctor. Where is his seminary training? He's the one that constantly bleats about the disqualification of others based on their academic qualifications, but where is Sippo's list of specialized degrees in biblical hermeneutics. Svenden's graduate level work specializes in NT exegesis correct?
ReplyDeleteMy point is that I don't consider NT (historical) exegesis as a field all that significant to the question of dogmatic authority of revelation.
Okay, then pick a NT passage for us and write an exegetical paper - the long way. That is, cite a minimum of 20 standard commentaries that you consider, and you have to be sure that you pick a balanced list of those with which you agree and disagree and disucuss them in detail and why you think they are right or wrong-not based on what another commentator says but what your own exegesis of the text in its raw form yields. Be sure to do an indepth study of the grammar and syntax in the original language(s) and explain how your conclusions flow from the grammar and syntax. Include references to the correct parallel texts, if any, with supporting exegesis. For example, why don't you exegete the texts on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ cited by John Piper and produce a parallel monograph refuting his conclusions in a similar form and style.
(1) It would prove nothing, given the authority that any such conclusion would have.
(2) The issue that you cited (imputed righteousness) isn't even pertinent to single-subject Christology.
(3) Even the opponents of the single-subject Christology of John 1 admit that the single-subject reading of John 1 is legitimate and even likely (if you want a citation for the "high Christology" in John, Raymond Brown will do as well as anyone). If I agree with a particular commentator and his arguments appear to be logically adequate, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to simply rely on what the commentator says. As I said, that's what scholarly disciplines are there to allow.
(4) The label "the texts on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ" is tendentious and begs the question as to your conclusion. Moreover, showing that righteousness of Christ is "imputed" in some a particular passage doesn't actually rebut the philosophical doctrine of infused righteousness, for even infused righteousness involves righteousness that is not "proper" to the subject being counted as if it were.
(5) Perhaps most importantly, I would actually have to care what you, Hays, or Triablogue readers thought in order to invest that much effort into persuading you that I am worth taking seriously. Frankly, I don't really care whether you take me seriously or not.
You see, biblcial exegeis and legal exegesis aren't in the same category.You may learn some parallel skills, but the subject matter is not at all the same.
What you were just describing wouldn't even qualify as Biblical exegesis from my perspective; it wouldn't even reach the spiritual sense, which is an essential element of Catholic exegesis. It would extend only to the literal sense, and that just barely. I would argue that the complete exegetical method would look a great deal more like my idea of legal exegesis than yours of biblical exegesis.
In fact, I think I speak for Steve and Jason as well as myself when I agree with you on this statement, for you treat the biblical text like a Supreme Court decision, which you then read through a particular set of opinions like an ACLU lawyer
The ACLU has some very good lawyers, including a couple of my classmates who are extremely sharp, so I take that as a compliment. I don't see why their philosophical or theological failings impact their exegetical skills. I'll concede that accusation, if in fact it is one, because it points to the differences in our methods.
What we get from you isn't an analysis of the decision, it's the analysis of the opinions of others, usually and most often begging the question in your favor.
There's no question-begging here. The works I've cited are the same ones you find in any bibliography of any scholar of any persuasion. They are the ones that have to be answered, even by critics.
You do then the same with the biblical text.
Sure, and I don't see anything wrong with that. That's what schoalrly disciplines enable one to do.
You tell us what the Fathers, in your opinion, thought, not what the text itself in its raw form actually says.
What the text in its raw form actually says isn't what is authoritative; it's only the starting point for determining what is authoritative. What the Fathers think is another step in what the authoritative meaning of Scripture is.
But this only pushes the question back a step. Why should we accept what you say about what the Fathers say? Why should we accept what the Fathers say, particularly since many times they contradict each other?
Why should you accept what the Apostles say as authoritative either? Believing that they don't contradict each other certainly wouldn't suffice to make their statements binding in every particular. I accept the Fathers for the same reason I accept the Apostles, because there is continuity between their authority and the existing Church to which I give my assent of faith. If the Church lacks the authority that I believe it to have, then I would reject the authority of Scripture as well. This is why many responses for Protestants don't make any hay with Catholic or Orthodox Christians. If presented with the same reasons for believing the authority of Scripture that you have, then we would reject it. We accept the authority of Scripture BECAUSE it is consistent with other God-given authority. If we found that the bishops lacked God-given authority, then we would almost certainly conclude the same about Scripture.
As a Roman Catholic, pray tell us where is the list of infallibly interpreted texts along with their infallible interpretations produced by your communion?
As Perry has been trying to beat into your heads, it's not a question of interpretation, but authority. You can concede the authority of statements while admitting that you might be mistaken about them. For example, you can concede the authority of the law without entirely knowing what the law is. You're confusing my knowledge about a thing's authority with the thing's authority (alternatively, my knowledge of what I affirm with the truth-maker for what I am affirming). Given that Perry has repeated this literally dozens of times, I'm not expecting this to make any impression (indeed, Svendsen's reply to Perry shows it ent entirely over his head), but I can absolutely affirm that if you never get the point, you will never be taken seriously by any Catholic or Orthodox Christian.
Why would someone start listing their credentials in a debate, unless they had either run out of argument, or were just arrogant and full of themselves?
ReplyDeleteI see you're at Tech, Travis. Couldn't get into A&M? ;-)
(sorry, just goading an old SWC rival)
I certainly don't believe that formal qualifications actually mean much of anything. Svendsen was the one who brought up my supposed lack of qualifications (and Hays piled on); I simply raise them to say that it's not even true that I lack formal qualifications, for my formal qualifications are quite well-suited to the studies I am advocating.
The real problem is lack of substantive familiarity with the patristic literature, either in secondary sources or translations of primary sources. Svendsen doesn't appear to have read anything in the last decade, and when there have been major scholarly discoveries in the same period, it's a pretty glaring omission.
"My point is that I don't consider NT (historical) exegesis as a field all that significant to the question of dogmatic authority of revelation."
ReplyDeleteWhich is precisely why the charge of Docetism sticks on you. This goes hand in hand with your docetic view of the apostles. You don’t count them as authoritative because, in your view, they’re not “real” people. And it also goes hand in hand with your docetic view of Christ (for which, see below).
“Even the opponents of the single-subject Christology of John 1 admit that the single-subject reading of John 1 is legitimate and even likely”
That’s because, contrary to your cursory understanding of these issues, the debate is not about a “single-subject Christology” vs. a “dual-subject Christology.” That’s a debate of your own making. And if you had read my article on Apollinarimonophysites with any degree of caution, you would have caught that. I specifically state in that article: “Both the human nous and the divine nous are bound together in Christ and comprise His person. . . . Both natures comprise *one person*--not a divine person or a human person, but *one* person with a divine nature and a human nature.” The aristotelian terms *nous* / *person* / etc. are used as a mere accommodation. I reject those categories as unbiblical, and it is abundantly evident that they have almost single-handedly caused the ongoing catholic confusion on this issue.
Biblically speaking, the separation of these categories simply does not exist. A “person” and his “nature” are biblically inseparable, perhaps even to the point of being indistinguishable. God as a “person” cannot cease to be God in “nature” and still be God. Man as a “person” cannot cease to be man in “nature” and still be man. biblically, no “person” can have a “nature” that does not reflect his “person.”
“The issue that you cited (imputed righteousness) isn't even pertinent to single-subject Christology”
Well then let’s try an issue that is eminently relevant. Heb 2 affirms that Jesus was “made man” and that “He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” 1 Tim 2:5 tells us that there is one mediator between man and God, “the man Christ Jesus.” Let’s see how well you do exegeting these texts by answering some questions about them.
These texts affirm that Jesus was “a man.” Further, they affirm he was *fully* a man “in all things,” not a *partial* man, not *almost* a complete man, and not mere “flesh and blood.” Indeed, the full “manhood” of Jesus as the “last Adam” is assumed in texts such as Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Further, they assert that if he did not assume *full* humanity, then he could not have redeemed us fully—to which even the fathers testify: “What is not assumed is not redeemed” (Gregory of Nazianzus). Atonement requires that Jesus is fully man--flesh, intellect, spirit, and whatever else one may care to specify regarding that which makes a man a “man”--not simply God with a "human nature.” It is not "human nature" that mediates for us before God, but "the man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5). Atonement is possible only if one who is fully man, through perfect obedience to God, can reverse the sin brought into the world by the “man” (viz., Adam) who, using his human soul, spirit, will, intellect, etc., rebelled against God. Otherwise, while Jesus may well have redeemed our fleshly bodies, He has done absolutely nothing to redeem our souls. True humanity is defined biblical as the whole person--much more than material human flesh, but also everything immaterial about man.
I will be posting a full response to your claptrap later. In the meantime, here are some questions that will test not only your exegetical abilities but also the biblical consistency of your own view:
1. Do you believe Jesus was fully human; that is to say, fully a man? Was he 100% man?
2. Was there any part of humanity that was not “shared” by Jesus via the incarnation? In other words, if one attribute of humanity is “personhood” (and whatever that entails on your view), did Jesus assume humanity on that level?
3. If the answer #2a is yes (and/or 2b no), what is included in your definition of “person” that was unimpacted by sin and does not therefore need to be redeemed in the atonement?
4. If your answer to #3 includes nothing, then what is it that redeems those inclusions and how exactly are they redeemed?
5. If your answer to #3 includes anything at all, then explain how it was unimpacted by sin and exempt from the need for redemption.
6. Where is sin conceived? In your feet? Or in your thoughts, your intellect, your soul? Something else?
Misc Philosophical Questions:
7. On your view, which phrase below is most accurate AND best avoids redundancy when referring to a man?
a. A human person with a human nature
b. A human person (human nature is assumed)
c. A person with a human nature
d. Other?
8. have you ever referred to a human being as "a human person with a human nature"? If not, why not?
9. Is there a categorical
difference in your concept of “personhood” when it refers to human as opposed to when it refers to divine? If so, what is that difference? If not, then what real objection do you have with the phrase "person with a divine nature?" Is "divine person" substantially different on your view from "person with a divine nature"? If so, in what way exactly?
“What you were just describing wouldn't even qualify as Biblical exegesis from my perspective”
And why should your perspective even count, since you are clueless about what biblical exegesis is?
“The works I've cited are the same ones you find in any bibliography of any scholar of any persuasion.”
Not exactly. The patristic scholars you cite has at least read the primary sources. It is abundantly clear you have not.
“I certainly don't believe that formal qualifications actually mean much of anything. Svendsen was the one who brought up my supposed lack of qualifications (and Hays piled on).
Poppycock! You were the one who raised the issue that my training included nothing in patristics, and used that as some sort of reason not to take my views seriously. I simply responded to something you wrote not only recently but dozens of times in the past on various boards. You either have a very short memory, or you are a liar.
Dr. Svendsen:
ReplyDeleteI've answered your questions here.