Touched by an angel

I’ve been reading an unintentionally entertaining series on my Protestant positivism-cum-Cartesianism by our fallen seraph.

http://benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2007/05/19/triablogueer-steve-flails-about-impotently-yet-again/#more-1372

“First some comments on the Triablogue’ers. They’re a group of Reformed polemicists whose trade in stock is ad hominem, diversion, appeal to authority and question begging.”

Does this mean he rejects the appeal to authority? If so, file that for future reference the next time he invokes the church fathers or ecumenical councils.

“Oh, and they’re never wrong. They’re always right. If you think they’re wrong, you’re wrong.”

Okay, I’ll admit that I was wrong back in 1971 when I used a table knife instead of a butter knife in making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich if our fallen seraph will admit that he was wrong in thinking that the Eastern Orthodox is the one true church. Deal?

“But most of what they do is in the arena of religious criticism, and they attack anything that doesn’t conform to their Reformed ideology.”

You’ll notice that his entire, introductory paragraph is an ad hominem diversion.

“My reaction has no bearing whatsoever on any argument I could be making. I could have ranted, raved and otherwise behaved badly, but the point is quite simple: has Steve successfully made his argument and/or has my argument refuting/denying his been successful?”

Actually, I didn’t make an argument. I merely quoted some material. Our fallen seraph had to turn that material into an argument before he could attempt, however ineffectually, to refute an argument of his own making. So, thus far, he’s done all the sweating.

“Here Steve is playing false. He’s pretending that his mere citing of the quotes is not meant to make an argument: he’s just citing sources, not arguing anything. But then notice that he’s clearly being disingenuous because he has a purpose: cite the quotes, draw a response necessitating negative conclusions, note that one’s interlocutors ‘do my job for me.’ In other words, readers react to his implied ‘argument,’ thus demonstrating his ‘argument’ to be ‘true’.”

What I did was to set a trap. And our fallen seraph, being the agreeable guy that he is, sailed straight into the flypaper. And so you see him now, as his hairy legs work furiously to pry his wings free of the flypaper. Let us hope, for his sake, that no spiders are in the area.

Yes, I have an ulterior motive. But that’s the point—it’s ulterior. In order for accommodating victims like our fallen seraph to fly into the trap, they have to perceive that what I posted is threatening to their position. And this is something that they are inferring, not from anything I wrote, or any application I made, but from the unannotated material itself. They were the ones who have to initially admit that this material has negative consequences for their position before they can even attempt to blunt the force of its negative consequences. I’m not the one who “necessitated” this reaction.

This is a dilemma of their own making. All I did was to post some colorful flypaper on the wall, then sit back in my lounge chair with my lemonade and wait for an unsuspecting victim to get stuck. As P. T. Barnum said…

“Of course the quotes are irrelevant to the question of an/the Orthodox canon. The quotes are similarly irrelevant to the discussion of any canon: a text critically satisfying document does not a canon make. We could come to near-absolute certainty on the text of Barnabas. But that does not make Barnabas part of the canon. I pointed out the non sequitor of this tactic in which Steve engages in my first post. Here he simply ignores the non-link between text criticism and canon, and proceeds as though that linkage has happened.”

You’d think that a postgrad philosophy student could distinguish between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. Is an official (Orthodox) text of Mark or Jeremiah (to use his two examples) a sufficient condition of canonicity? No. But it is a necessary condition.

What is the canonical (Orthodox) text of Jeremiah? The MT text or the LXX text? Or both? Or neither?

Which is the canonical (Orthodox) text of Mark? The text with the long ending or the short ending? Or both? Or neither?

So, yes, textuality does intersect with canonicity. Which text is being canonized?

Again, you’d think that a postgrad philosophy student could figure that out.

“And just what are the consequences of not having a text critically satisfying text? Watch the polemical legerdemain or you’ll miss it…Steve moves, without any argument, from the lack of text critically satisfying documents to the lack of a canon. Did you see it? He tries to be slick about it, but we’re on to him. How does the Orthodox lack of an analogous Nestle-Aland in any way follow into the conclusion that the Orthodox do not have a canon of Scripture? Answer: it doesn’t.”

I’ve already answered that question (see above). But let’s make another point. Our fallen seraph is substituting a different argument in place of the actual argument I implicitly make. I never said that the Orthodox church needs to have a *critical* edition of the Bible to have a canon. Rather, I said that the Orthodox church needs to have an *official* edition of the Bible to have a canon.

For purposes of my immediate (implicit) argument, it matters not which edition of the Bible it chooses to make official. It could be the MT or LXX. It could be the Western text, Alexandrian text, or Byzantine text. It could be a particular MS, like Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, or Leningrad.

But the problem, from the material I’ve quoted, is that Orthodoxy has no official text. And our fallen seraph hasn’t challenged that material. What he’s tried to do is challenge its relevance. He admits that the Orthodox church has no official text of Scripture. And his only fallback so to say that doesn’t matter.

“For the Masoretic text is not a text critical document. It is the basis for text critical editions of the Masoretic text, but it is not an example of modernist text criticism.”

Is our fallen seraph merely attempting to play dumb, or is he really that obtuse?

What were the intentions of the Massoretes? To preserve the Urtext. What are the intentions of modern textual critics? To recover the Urtext? The essential aim is the same in both cases. Whether it’s Metzger or the Massoretes, they are assuming a distinction between autographs and copies. And the concern is to approximate the autograph as nearly as possible.

“Yes, the Enlightenment itself is a development of the Renaissance, so it’s no surprise that one would find Enlightenment precursors among Renaissance thinkers.”

i) He’s now trying to extricate himself from an elementary historical blunder, and the exercise isn’t pretty to watch. Remember that this is a postgrad philosophy student. Suppose he took an exam in which he identified Machiavelli as an Enlightenment philosopher. Naturally he’d be marked down.

Suppose he tried to defend his answer by explaining to the professor that since the “Enlightenment itself is a development of the Renaissance,” it’s perfectly okay to classify a Renaissance philosopher as an Enlightenment philosopher.

ii) And while we’re on the subject, he’s using labels as a substitute for arguments. Slap the word “Enlightenment” on Evangelicalism or textual criticism because “Enlightenment” is supposed to carry odious connotations, and therefore discredit the position through guilt-by-association.

Once again, suppose he were to try that tactic on an essay test. Suppose he were to dismiss Leibniz or Descartes out of hand simply because they were “Enlightenment” philosophers. No need for argument—the label will do all the heavy-lifting.

“For pity’s sake, it’s no secret that manuscripts of texts were weighed against one another prior to the modernist era, but it took modernist thinking to turn such things into the science of text criticism.”

And why were MSS weighted against one another prior to the modernist era? To kill time?

And what’s wrong with trying to make this comparison more rigorous and systematic?

“And in playing catch with my friends I find myself concerned with force, velocity and gravitational attraction. But that doesn’t make throwing a football the equivalent of the practice of physics.”

Poor analogy. You’d think a postgrad philosophy student could mount a decent argument from analogy. A better analogy would be that all the players are attempting to catch the ball—indeed, to catch the very same ball.

“It is that non-linkage that makes such impositions. And, furthermore, it is just historically backwards. Only a canon makes it necessary to recover the original wording–which is the aim, or at least once was the aim, of text criticism. Apart from the canon there is no necessity to establish the ‘urtext’ of, say, the epistle to the Laodiceans.”

Several things wrong here:

i) He’s contradicting himself. Earlier, he denied any linkage:

“A text critically satisfying document does not a canon make. We could come to near-absolute certainty on the text of Barnabas. But that does not make Barnabas part of the canon. I pointed out the non sequitor of this tactic in which Steve engages in my first post. Here he simply ignores the non-link between text criticism and canon, and proceeds as though that linkage has happened.”

Now, however, he’s admitting a link. And in his new argument, which abrogates his old argument, he makes canonicity prior to textual criticism. Assuming that’s true, it falsifies his earlier argument where he explicitly denied any linkage.

ii) Textual criticism isn’t limited to a sacred text. Critical editions are issued for many profane authors. So textual criticism doesn’t presuppose canonicity.

iii) If he bothered to read a work like David Trobisch’s The First Edition of the New Testament, he’d appreciate the degree to which a standard edition of the NT text standardizes the NT canon.

“His diversion about epistemic advantage is wholly beside the point–unless he can provide that phantom enthymeme linking his point about text-criticism and the Orthodox canon.”

One of our fallen seraph’s many problems is that he’s jumping into the middle of an ongoing debate without acquainting himself with the prior history of the debate. This debate didn’t begin with him. And whether Orthodoxy enjoys an epistemic advantage over Evangelicalism is directly germane to the ongoing debate.

“Secondly, he also assumes that all his and his pals’ previous arguments about some purported ‘epistemic advantage’ they have over Orthodox are true simply because they’ve all bloviated endlessly about such matters and because they will not admit that any Orthodox has bested their argument. (And even is such really is the case, I suspect it’s because they don’t have a lot of Orthodox visitors, which is just as well.)”

Another example of our fallen seraph’s ad hominem diversionary tactics.

“And finally Steve once again engages in a straw man by ascribing to me a position I do not hold: ‘[Orthodoxy is] at a disadvantage because it also rejects (according to him) modern textual criticism.’ I never said that. It does not follow from any comments I made, and, in fact it is false.”

Really? What about sweeping dismissals like: “First of all it begs the question of a need for a standard critical edition of the set of books that are the Orthodox canon of Scripture. Critical editions of texts are a uniquely modernist development based on Enlightenment epistemological presuppositions.”

Continuing:

“First of all, which standard reference works’? Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant?”

If he’d been following the discussions, he’d already know the answer. Works like the Historical Dictionary of The Orthodox Church as well as The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity. Jason has also been quoting from Meyendorff and Timothy Ware. Those are a few examples.

“Simply because a Protestant can get enough facts about Orthodoxy right does not mean that he understands Orthodoxy.”

Why do Orthodox authors write books on Orthodoxy if not to explain, defend, and/or promote Orthodoxy?

“Furthermore, even if one cites a Zizioulas, a Nellas or a Yannaros, that doesn’t mean a) that the person citing really gets what the Orthodox writer is saying, and b) (more importantly) that Orthodoxy can be understood via ‘standard reference works’.”

Translation: when Jason and I beat them at their own game by quoting their own authors, then folks like our fallen seraph must retreat into clouds of mystification.

“Orthodoxy is a living faith, not an dead thing stuck to a board and liable to dissection. If you want to know about what Orthodoxy believes and lives regarding it’s canon, you’ll have to start worshiping regularly at an Orthodox parish. And that’s only for starters.”

Calvinism is a living faith, not a dead thing stuck to a board and liable to dissection. If you want to know about what Calvinism believes and lives regarding its canon, you’ll have to start worshiping regularly at a Reformed parish. And that’s only for starters.

“What does Steve mean by ‘certain’? Any bets on whether such ‘certainty’ is guided by modernist presuppositions about epistemological claims and evidence?”

Once again, the problem of jumping into an ongoing debate without proper preparation. He should redirect his question to the other Orthodox layman who has been frequenting our combox so often.

“To answer his question: Yes, Orthodox can be certain of their canon and certain, too, of their texts.”

That’s very encouraging. So tell us where to find your official canon of Scripture as well as your official text of Scripture.

“For Steve to assert that Orthodox are at a disadvantage as to epistemic claims for their canonical texts is to use a rule the Orthodox do not use, and to assume that such a rule is itself valid.”

Actually, if he were to pay attention, he’d see that I haven’t been judging Orthodoxy by my criteria. Rather, I’ve been judging Orthodoxy on his own grounds. Show us your Bible.

I said: “To take his own example, did Jesus say the things attributed to him in the long ending of Mark? Or is that an apocryphal interpolation?”

He said: “If I were to answer Steve’s question, I would concede his argument: which I don’t.”

So he has no answer, even though my question used his own example. When I ask him a simple question, taking his own example (the long ending of Mark) as the subject of the question, he draws a blank.

He’s in a bind, you see. Better to say nothing than to say the wrong thing. An answer would expose the inadequacy of his position.

Hence, he cannot tell us what text of Mark (or Jeremiah, to take another one of his illustrations) constitutes the canonical text of Scripture in Orthodoxy.

“Steve thinks (for various reasons) that his own epistemic position is the only epistemic position that is true, and since Orthodoxy steadfastly refuses to conform itself to Steve’s epistemic convictions, Steve gets to claim, so he thinks, that Orthodox have no certainty about their Scriptural canon, and therefore have no canon. 3 or 4 Maccabees? Psalm 151? 2 Esdras? Don’t different Orthodox groups think differently on these matters? And if the Orthodox are of different minds on the fundamental canon of Scripture how can Orthodox claim to have the mind of Christ?”

Is that what Steve thinks? I have never framed the issue in terms of whether or not the Orthodox have the mind of Christ. I’ve never said that the Orthodox position is defective because it leads to diversity on the canon, which in turn, deprives them of access to the mind of Christ. Rather, the problem is as follows:

i) If they can’t even agree on the canon, then they enjoy no epistemic advantage over Evangelicalism.

ii) They are at a disadvantage since their views on the canon are determined by blind traditionalism rather than suitable evidence.

“The problem Steve has is in thinking that his convictions regarding the Protestant canon, essentially positivist in nature, are the same convictions that shaped the Church’s process of canonizing the Scriptures.”

Is that what Steve thinks? Can he quote me to that effect?

“But, in point of fact, the Church’s canon was not drawn up in Council and then delivered to the masses.”

I never said otherwise. Our fallen seraph is shadowboxing with a figment of his own imagination.

“Rather, as the local Churches read these books in their worship, and as they discerned the book’s apostolic origin or apostolic approval, and as these books were consonant with the living apostolic tradition, they became the canon.”

No, this is mystical gibberish. Holy hocus-pocus.

What happened, rather, is that many NT books were written by known authors to known churches. And even in cases where some NT books always had a more general audience, they were written by known authors. There was a lot of networking in the 1C church. What we have, then, is an epicentral dissemination of the NT from various localities to the church at large, as copies are made and disseminated.

“But this process was organic and fluid, not delivered by fiat.”

I never said otherwise.

“The Conciliar decisions simply clarify what the Church’s experience relative to and witness to these books is.”

Partly true, although there’s a mystical-cum-existential overlay to the way he’s putting things. Orthodox abracadabra.

“But the shape of that canon was not always clear, even after Conciliar canons. So, while Revelation makes the list, it isn’t used in the Liturgy. So, while local Churches utilized Hermas or Barnabas for decades, those books do not make the list. And it’s why to this day, some books not used in the Liturgy are considered by some local Churches as part of the canon (4 Maccabees), and some books used in the Liturgy (Manasseh) are part of the canon.”

Which nicely corroborates the point that Gene, Jason, I, and others have been making all along: the Orthodox have no official canon of Scripture.

“Of course, Steve’s further problem is that since as Protestant he has no direct access to the mind of the Church.”

Not having access to “the mind of the Church” isn’t a problem for me, for Jesus, the apostles, and prophets never direct us to that amorphous abstraction as the rule of faith.

“Then the only place of authority, the only place of apostolic faith and tradition, he can attain is that of sola scriptura.”

Sola Scriptura is not a fallback position. Rather, sola Scriptura is the rule of faith that God has given to his covenant community.

“In other words, Steve needs a clear, distinct and positivist canon or else he has nothing else on which to base his faith.”

i) Notice how he uses positivism and Cartesianism as synonyms. A postgrad philosophy student should know better.

ii) In addition, he hasn’t quoted anything I’ve said to justify either label. But for ecclesiolaters like our fallen seraph, labels are handy placeholders in the absence of actual evidence or reasoned argument.

“Having cut himself off from the life and faith of the holy, catholic, apostolic and one Church, he can have no recourse to any other authority than the one the Scripture affords him.”

I’m quite content to have recourse to the authority of God’s word, since that is the standard to which God has always held his people accountable. We are answerable to God by being answerable to his word. That’s the way it’s always been, from the Garden to the end of the church age.

“Therefore, he projects his desparation [sic.] for an authority outward on those who have no such need as his and wonders why it is that they don’t kowtow to his little list of rules about the canon.”

No, I don’t wonder why there are so many folks like our fallen seraph. In every generation there is always a large number of individuals who, while chronologically adults, are emotionally retarded. In their state of arrested development, they have never weaned themselves from mother’s milk. Mother Church suckles them and burps them and tucks them into their oversized crib. She sings them nursery rhymes and bandages their bruised elbows and knees.

“Steve is without any authority save that of the Scriptures.”

Our fallen seraph keeps making statements like this as if that’s a worse case scenario.

“Steve is desparate [sic.] for a canon because he does not have the Church.”

Our fallen seraph talks just like a child lost in the department store. “Mommy! Mommy! Where are you!”

That’s well and good when you’re a five-year old, but when you’re fifty, and Mom is ninety, isn’t the time past due to outgrow the pacifier and the Teddy Bear?

God has given us his word. Between his word and providence, that’s all we need to know his will and do his will.

God has also instituted the Church, but the church is a family of brothers and sisters, not a mother and child.

“As a logician Steve should know: the fallacies of division and composition apply as much to arguments about the canon as to anything else.”

As a postgrad philosophy student, our fallen seraph should know that not all part/whole inferences are fallacious. If every portion of a brick façade is made of bricks, then the entire façade is made of bricks (and vice versa).

“It [the canon] is living breathing tradition.”

This is a metaphor in search of an argument. And it’s a flawed metaphor.

The books of the canon are not living and breathing. That’s the difference between the spoken word and the written word. The prophets and apostles committed their doctrine to writing precisely because they wouldn’t be around for the duration. But their writings would.

“But since he has distorted the whole by distorting the part, he distorts and invalidates the authority he claims.”

Gee, sounds like the fallacy of division.