Pages

Monday, August 20, 2007

Liberal Orthodoxy

From Steve:
---------

Note the liberal view of Scripture implicit in these Orthodox introductions to parts of the Bible:
Old Testament Introduction, Vol. I; Historical Traditions

Paul Nadim Tarazi

This revised edition of Paul Tarazi's The Old Testament: An Introduction — Historical Traditions takes into account twelve years of additional research. The way historical background is presented constitutes the biggest change: this book no longer includes a reconstruction of the "history of Israel." The author concludes that none of the scriptural books were intended to offer a history in the sense that we use that word today, so any efforts to construct such a history necessarily lead one astray from the original intention of the scriptural text. What the Scripture's original authors and editors did intend was to present a long ma'al — a Hebrew word that is variously translated "parable," "allegory," "proverb," or "edifying story." Therefore, the best way to understand the biblical books is to focus on the story itself.

Without imposition, Fr Tarazi presents the evidence for his exegesis and invites the reader to judge whether or not it clarifies the text. Besides effectively making sense of otherwise hard-to-understand texts, Fr Tarazi dismisses speculative discussions about matters such as if and when the exodus "actually happened" and thus leaves more room for in-depth discussions of other issues.


New Testament Introduction, The, vol. I; Paul and Mark


Paul Nadim Tarazi

Fr Tarazi explains how the very concept of a New Testament "scripture" came into being, beginning with Paul's letters. Paul's death then left a void in the leadership of Gentile Christianity, which was still under attack by Jewish Christianity. In order to defend the faith as it was preached by Paul, some of his followers created what is now the Gospel of Mark. Their purpose was not to make a historical chronicle of Jesus' life or a systematic presentation of Christian doctrine, but rather to defend Paul's conception of Christianity from the remaining (Jewish) apostles. In writing the story of Jesus, they interpreted Jesus himself and the events of his life according to what they knew of the teaching s and life story of their own leader Paul.


New Testament Introduction, Volume III; Johannine Writings


Fr Paul Nadim Tarazi

Written for the non-specialist reader, this edition covers the Johannine literature - Revelation, the Gospel and the Epistles. Specifically, Tarazi addresses the enigmatic Book of Revelation with its fantastical creatures, the significance of the numbers 666 and 144,000, the Millennium and so-called "futuristic prophecy." Perhaps most interestingly, the author makes a case that the head of the Johannine school was none other than the evangelist Mark who fulfilled the perceived need to provide a written record for the Church as the apostolic age was drawing to a close.

The Rev. Dr. Paul Nadim Tarazi is Professor of Old Testament at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary.

9 comments:

  1. Off topic: what do you think about this argument here:

    http://spoirier.lautre.net/philo/christianism-refuted.htm

    ReplyDelete
  2. So what is so liberal about the conjecture that Mark was in the Johannine school? Or that the ancient literary style is not the same as modern historical style? It's a bit like people who note that the various gospels present the events in a different order, and thus we observe that the aim of the gospel writers was not to provide a chronological history in the style of modern historical style. Big whoop. What is this, find an Orthodox Christian to bash week?

    Where does one begin here?

    1. Where is Mark connected to a Johannine school?

    Pay attention, Orthodox, it's connected to a PAULINE school according to Tarazi.

    2. What's liberal about that?

    Well, that would be a view that would come not from conservative scholarship, Orthodox, but liberal/neo-orthodox scholarship. It's part and parcel argumentation of those who employ source, form, and redaction criticism, in short, German Higher Criticism.

    3. It also flies in the face of "Holy Tradition" does it not? For, according to Holy Tradition, one would presume, Mark was Peter's amanuensis. So much for the Orthodox rule of faith's alleged superiority to ours on this issue.

    4. And notice that not only is Mark said to be the product of a "community" but this community's motive is: to defend Paul's conception of Christianity from the remaining (Jewish) apostles.

    In other words, this places Mark's Gospel in OPPOSITION to the doctrine of the Apostles.

    This, of course, would have the effect of placing, at a minimum, assuming for argument (which cannot be done here since Tarazi would logically deny apostolic authorship of Matt. and John), apostolic authorship, a wedge between Mark and John.

    Now, this, in turn, has serious ramifications for what we call "the synoptic problem," for Luke would be Pauline too. Matthew, however, is certainly of a Jewish flavor. So, Mark's theology would be at odds with Matthew even without apostolic authorship, since Matthew would logically represent the opposing viewpoint.

    And where might we find a true view of Jesus if:

    "In writing the story of Jesus, they interpreted Jesus himself and the events of his life according to what they knew of the teaching s and life story of their own leader Paul."?

    On this view, the life of Jesus is filtered through a Pauline lens.

    Now, on the one hand, that's a step up from the Jesus Seminar liberals who are using Gnosticism as their lens, not 2nd Temple Judaism, but on the other hand, that's still a theological coloring from a community of persons - and one that is expressly said to be at odds with the living Apostles at the time. That generally has led to the assertion that these communities "put words in Jesus mouth," words He did not Himself speak. That's not the same as conservative scholarship's view. We believe these are summaries of what He said, but we deny that words were put into his mouth to reflect a source community's view of Him, especically to support a view of Him and His teachings contrary to that of other Apostles.

    And where in this is there any room for the Holy Spirit in this process?

    So, what, Orthodox, is NOT liberal about this? This isn't at all like the claim you make, which is quite conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ORTHODOX SAID:

    “So what is so liberal about the conjecture that Mark was in the Johannine school? Or that the ancient literary style is not the same as modern historical style? It's a bit like people who note that the various gospels present the events in a different order, and thus we observe that the aim of the gospel writers was not to provide a chronological history in the style of modern historical style. Big whoop.”

    Because Orthodox is just as liberal as Tarazi, he is blind to liberal theology. To a liberal, liberalism is normal. To an infidel, infidelity is the norm.

    He can’t detect anything liberal about the statement that there’s no point in asking if the Exodus “actually happened” since we should read all the OT historical books as parables or allegories.

    He can’t detect anything liberal in denying that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. Rather, it was written by Pauline disciples who historicized Pauline doctrine and fabricated their own version of the Christ-event (under a pseudonym) in opposition to the other apostles.

    He can’t detect anything liberal in denying the apostolic authorship of the Johannine literature in favor of a Johannine “school.”

    As I’ve said before, Orthodox is just a smells-n-bells version of John Spong.

    “What is this, find an Orthodox Christian to bash week?”

    Given the way you constantly bash evangelicalism, who are you to whine and carry on?

    “I find it quite ironic that you are attempting to impugn the Orthodox Church in general by throwing mud at one man Tarazi, whose point is that you can't trust one man, even if he be Peter over and above the Church. What if we found that one member of the Church has gone awry? That's nothing different than which has happened from the beginning.”

    Several problems:

    1.”Throwing mud”? Another example of Orthodox’s inkblot exegesis. What we did was to simply reproduce verbatim summaries of Tarazi’s books—taken straight off the website of his publisher—with a brief comment on the obviously liberal slant of his historical reconstructions.

    Orthodox keeps acting outraged when we quote Orthodox scholars in their own words. Nothing could be more self-incriminating than for an Orthodox layman to accuse us of mudslinging when we merely quote Orthodox sources on the state of Orthodox theology. If that is mudslinging, then the soiled state of the theology is self-inflicted.

    2.Then you have Orthodox’s schizophrenic reaction. On the one hand, he gets very agitated and tries to refute the charge. On the other hand, he says the charge doesn’t matter.

    Of course, if he doesn’t think the charge matters one way or the other, why is his first instinct to refute the charge?

    The same schizophrenic pathology was on display in reaction to the charge of Platonism. First he denies the charge.

    Then he says it doesn’t matter because both John and Paul allegedly use Greek philosophy.

    His duplicity is tactical. He wants a fallback position in case his lead argument falls flat. He advances one argument, but he wants an insurance polity incase his lead argument is shot down. When his lead argument turns out to be a demonstrable failure, he then tells us not to hold him to that argument as he whips out a different argument from his back pocket—which different argument which happens to directly contradict his lead argument.

    Orthodox would make Pinocchio look snub-nosed by comparison.

    But we sympathize with his sorry situation. Orthodox sees himself as the Atlas of Eastern Orthodoxy. You see, the hierarchs can’t be trusted to defend the faith. They’re too busy polishing the tinsel on their vestments.

    So this anonymous layman has taken it upon himself to speak up for Orthodoxy. The fortunes of global Orthodoxy rest on the wobbly shoulders of this lone layman. The Orthodox edifice would come crashing down if he didn’t prop it up with his toothpicks and matchsticks. It’s a lonely job, but if the bishops don’t pull their weight, then he must step in. Noble, don’t you think?

    3.Speaking of which—true, Tarazi is just one man. But notice the spiritual conceit of Orthodox. Who is this anonymous layman to appoint himself as the authentic oracle of Eastern Orthodoxy, and then dismiss the position of an Orthodox priest and professor at the leading Orthodox seminary in America? Like a military dictator, Orthodox has pinned a lot of stars and medals on his kaki shirt—making himself a five-star general.

    4.Finally, he doesn’t even consider an apostle to be trustworthy. In his ecclesiolatry, the church stands over and above the apostolate. The apostles are defectible, but the church is indefectible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Orthodox keeps acting outraged when we quote Orthodox scholars in their own words. Nothing could be more self-incriminating than for an Orthodox layman to accuse us of mudslinging when we merely quote Orthodox sources on the state of Orthodox theology.

    QED.

    (Word verification is oddly appropriate: outblgz)

    ReplyDelete
  5. GENE: Pay attention, Orthodox, it's connected to a PAULINE school according to Tarazi.

    ORTHODOX: I'm just quoting you: "makes a case that the head of the Johannine school was none other than the evangelist Mark".

    Did you rush through your hatchet job?


    Pardon? I was discussing the GOSPEL, not the EVANGELIST. Try to keep up, Orthodox.

    And, Orthodox, if you'd care to pay attention, you didn't quote me at all. I am not the author of this post.


    GENE: For, according to Holy Tradition, one would presume, Mark was Peter's amanuensis.

    ORTHODOX: Is it mutually exclusive to be Peter's amanuensis and also part of a Johannine school?


    Let's see:

    A. On this view, Mark is not the author of Mark.
    B. On this view, Mark is the product of a community.
    C. On this view, Mark is written to oppose the Jewish Apostles.
    D. On this view, Mark the Evangelist is part of a Johannine School. John was a Jewish Apostle.
    E. So, on this view, Mark's Gospel is in opposition to Mark the Evangelist.

    I don't think that's what he's saying. Beware of book blurbs. I pulled the book to glance at what he was saying. He seems to be saying that after the concilliar decision that was reached at the Jerusalem council, Paul was concerned about Peter and James' seeming pull back from that decision as mentioned in Galatians. In light of this Paul was keen to promote the doctrine as agreed on at Jerusalem in the face of opposition even from the other apostles. This is quite orthodox. Individuals, even apostles need to submit to the concilliar agreement of the Church.

    Notice how many question begging items are smuggled into this statement that are not even in the text of Scripture.

    And this is still precisely the sort of theory that a form critic would impose on the text, for this becomes the basis not of a single author gospel, but a product of a Pauline community who crafted a Jesus in their own image. This is inescapable.

    I find it quite ironic that you are attempting to impugn the Orthodox Church in general by throwing mud at one man Tarazi, whose point is that you can't trust one man, even if he be Peter over and above the Church.

    According to you, Peter would have to submit to the councils of the Church.
    So, according to you, Peter is not over the Church.

    One man? Okay, we'll try again:

    “A consensus exists among scholars that the 6C BC, and more especially the time and place of the Babylonian Exile, was the matrix from which the Hebrew Pentateuch and most of the prophetic books emerged in their final written form,” Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church, M. Prokurat et al. (Scarecrow Press 1996), 293.

    Gee, where do you suppose that came from?

    The fact is, Orthodox, when you think about the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, one does not think of Eastern Orthodox or even Roman Catholic scholarship. One thinks of conservative evangelical - Protestant - scholarship.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ORTHODOX SAID:

    “Again we have Steve attempting to impugn one member of the Church, as if he were successful it would say anything about the Church in general. How foolish!”

    What is foolish is our benighted commenter’s self-refuting argument. If we can summarily dismiss whatever one member of the Orthodox church has to say, then, by all means, let’s summarily dismiss everything that Orthodox has had to say in defense of his faith, since he’s just one individual, who has no right to speak for the church in general.

    Thanks for reminding us of your utter irrelevance throughout this debate. Your opinions are self-refuting and self-refuted.

    “That's not what it says! It says he dismisses those discussions about whether it happened.”

    Because Orthodox is proudly ignorant of Bible criticism, he is ignorant of Tarazi’s code language. Tarazi dismisses discussions over the historicity of the Pentateuch because he regards the Pentateuch as allegory rather than history. His own position is 100% unadulterated liberalism.

    “If some liberal came in here, wouldn't YOU be inclined to just dismiss all those discussions about whether it happened in favor of just accepting the narrative as-is?”

    Which is exactly why Jason, Gene, and I routinely dismiss your liberal views of Scripture.

    “Where is the point in pandering to liberals who want to discuss endlessly about whether it happened?”

    Which is exactly why Jason, Gene, and I don’t pander to your liberal views of Scripture.

    “Where does he say that the actual person of Mark wasn't involved? In fact he refers explicitely to ‘the evangelist Mark’ actually being involved.”

    Actually, he hedges his bets, using “Mark” as a neutral convention.

    “Where does he deny involvment of the apostle?”

    If he attributes the composition of the Johannine literature to a Johannine “school,” headed by Mark, then John wasn’t the author of the literature attributed to him. But you’re too obtuse to put two and two together.

    “No, you titled the posting as "Liberal Orthodoxy". It wasn't uncommented.”

    Another knuckleheaded comment by Orthodox. This is my actual statement:

    “What we did was to simply reproduce verbatim summaries of Tarazi’s books—taken straight off the website of his publisher—with a brief comment on the obviously liberal slant of his historical reconstructions.”

    Did I say the material was posted sans comment? No, I said just the opposite: “with a brief comment on the obviously liberal slant of his historical reconstructions.”

    But the bulk of the material is straight from the website.

    “It wasn't even ‘A liberal Orthodox person’ or even ‘liberalism within Orthodoxy’ but ‘liberal Orthodoxy’. So don't act all innocent, you're not fooling anyone.”

    Since St. Vladimir’s is the flagship of Orthodox seminaries in America, and since Tarazi is a Romanian priest who graduated from a Romanian seminary, I would say that his Orthodox credentials are impeccable. If his views were heterodox, then shouldn’t he have been sanctioned by his ecclesiastical superiors by now?

    “It is a tenet of Orthodoxy that it is everyone's job to defend the faith.”

    Don’t get me wrong—I think it’s wonderful to see the Orthodox faith defended by a layman of your peerless ineptitude. And it’s really not your fault. You were dealt a losing hand, so you’re duty-bound to play the hand you’re dealt, however dismal.

    “On the other hand, if I defend the faith it doesn't mean I don't trust the hierarchs to do so also.”

    Except that by your actions, you obviously don’t trust the hierarchs to get the job done—otherwise you would leave it to them. Rather, you’re doing it in their stead.

    “There is nothing sacrosanct about being a priest or even a priest in a seminary that puts you above judgment. Even Patriarchs are subject to the judgment of the laity, and if enough laity oppose them, they are likely to be ousted.”

    So the hierarchy is superfluous and expendable. Fine. Why not join the Plymouth Brethren?

    “Yes exactly, because that is what the bible teaches. Over and over individual apostles are found wanting, but the church is appointed to be the pillar of the truth. It's decision in the Jerusalem council was final, but the later issues with Peter against the Jerusalem council was subject to correction.”

    So many errors, so little time:

    i) You make no effort to exegete 1 Tim 3:15 in context.

    ii) Since 1 Tim 3:15 was penned by an apostle, it is self-refuting to cite 1 Tim 3:15 to prove the superiority of the church—much less the laity—to the apostolate. For your prooftext is only as good as the apostolic authority that underwrites it. Must you be a congenital dunce?

    iii) Peter never taught false doctrine. Rather, he simply lost his nerve in a socially awkward situation.

    iv) Peter’s misconduct was corrected by a fellow apostle, not by a council.

    v) You keep abusing the Acts 15, although you’ve been corrected on that point by Michael Prokurat and Alexander Golitzin:

    “The appeal to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) as paradigmatic for church decision-making procedure is frequently made by those emphasizing the importance of the hierarchy in the process of defining the faith…seemingly a perfect example.”

    “On closer examination, the example is problematical. Did the hierarchy really make the decision? First, Peter makes a speech and in it takes responsibility for the Gentile mission; but then James, the brother of the Lord, speaks and states, ‘I have reached a decision…’ Next, we find that ‘the apostles and the elders with the consent of the whole church decided…’ (v22); and again, when we read Paul’s account of what is ostensibly the same council (Gal 2:1-10), he states that he is the leader of the Gentile mission and the meeting in Jerusalem added nothing to his message or method.”

    “Finally, the Council was not really about orthodoxy at all, but about orthopraxy: The decision did not involve theology (q.v.) or the content of the faith, but only whether circumcision and certain types of abstinence would be practiced,” M. Prokurat et al. Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (Scarecrow Press 1996), 49-50.

    ReplyDelete
  7. For those readers who don't know, we repeatedly discussed issues like 1 Timothy 3:15 and the authority of councils when Orthodox was posting here a few months ago. He often left the discussions without interacting with our responses. Orthodox keeps changing his arguments, but if you consult the archives, you can find various forms of his inconsistent arguments refuted in previous threads.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ORTHODOX: He never says they crafted a Jesus in their own image. All he says is that a Pauline community put it together.

    I do believe the post "Liberal Orthodoxy" encore disabused you of that notion.

    Four problems here: Firstly, you compare "orthodox" scholarship with conservative evangelical scholarship.

    I'm merely taking the words I posted above at face value about your own scholars:


    “A consensus exists among scholars that the 6C BC, and more especially the time and place of the Babylonian Exile, was the matrix from which the Hebrew Pentateuch and most of the prophetic books emerged in their final written form,” Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church, M. Prokurat et al. (Scarecrow Press 1996), 293.

    But what if we compare conservative orthodox scholarship with liberal evangelical scholarship?

    Sure, but but this would be a problem for you, for you're claiming that our rule of faith is false because of disagreements.

    Secondly you make what you think, as an evangelical to be the norm, but if you weren't reading material in those circles you would likely think different.

    On the contrary, these are historical issues and text critical issues. Conservative scholarship is hardly limited to Protestantism. I never said otherwise. I'm not assuming a uniquely evangelical POV on higher criticism, authorship, etc.

    Thirdly, you compare your experience in an evangelical country, which is not going to be the same as if you were in an Orthodox country (where you would be considered the liberal).

    Notice the illicit move from an issue regarding text critical studies to a wider theological tradition.

    Fourthly, you define the boundaries of liberalism according to the criteria of what you believe as an evangelical, when all of evangelicalism is unbelieving liberalism from an Orthodox viewpoint.

    False, see two points above.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ORTHODOX: Obviously Tarazi is in large part teaching his private opinions here rather than Orthodox tradition.

    I love this.
    Why, Orthodox, is it obvious that these are his private opinions? If this stuff is found in a published work, why would I assume that? It sure seems like the assumption should go th'other way, barring an overriding agenda.

    ReplyDelete