Monday, June 23, 2008

Nuda Scriptura

Perry Robinson has weighed in on sola Scriptura:

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/the-naked-book/

“If Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, who is the judge that is to apply the rule?”

Must there be a uniform answer to that question?

“And what authority does such a judge possess?”

This assumes the “judge” in question must possess some sort of “authority” to apply the rule of faith. Why should we assume that?

“It seems to me that Sola Scriptura includes the thesis of the right of private judgment, namely that every believer can make normatively binding judgments and that only a believer can make judgments that are binding upon his or her conscience.”

i) As a semantic matter, I’ve never cared for the phrase, “the right of private judgment.” However, theology has a standardized terminology, so I usually acquiesce to linguistic conventions. But this is how I myself would formulate the principle:

a) God has the right to govern his church according to his appointed rule of faith (i.e. sola Scriptura).

b) No church officer (or church body) can invoke ecclesiastical authority as a shortcut for responsible exegesis.

“Further, if as Michael writes that advocates of Sola Scriptura hold that there were two sources of authority for the first say 400 years of the church, the one being tradition which was a summary, albeit a fallible one, of what was written by Scripture and accepted by the universal church, where is such a summary to be found? What document is a token of this summary? And what constitutes the ‘universal church?’ Where is there an example of the ‘universal church’ in the first four hundred years?”

That’s not how I’d frame the issue. For one thing, the validity of sola Scriptura doesn’t depend on the universal acceptance of the early church.

It’s either objectively true or false that Scripture alone is the rule of faith which God has imposed on his church. How many early Christians may or may not have seen it that way is irrelevant to where the truth lies.

“If Scripture during this period was in the process of being ‘recognized’ doesn’t this imply that Scripture itself wasn’t part of the faith universally recognized? If so, this would imply that the church for the first four hundred years, not to mention afterwards, didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura.”

i) This way of framing the issue partakes of the same fallacy noted above.

ii) But beyond that, it’s also equivocal. It could either mean:

a) The early church was in process of recognizing sola Scriptura as the rule of faith.

Or:

b) The early church was in process of recognizing the various books of the NT canon. Producing a uniform edition. Getting it distributed throughout the empire.

In case of (b), the principle of sola Scriptura was not the object of recognition. Rather, what books constituted sola Scripture was the object of recognition.

“I am not clear why ‘word of mouth’ is reliable in the first hundred years of the church, but not afterwards. Sure verbal communication can be corrupted, but so can texts.”

Yes, texts can be corrupted, but there are various criteria to identify textual corruption. See Tov on the OT and Metzger on the NT. What are Perry’s criteria for the corruption of oral tradition?

“Further, it too often seems to be the case that these models always appeal to some kind of apostasy and yet the church seemed to do an adequate job with issues much more sophisticated as with Christology and the Trinity.”

That’s doesn’t mean the early church did an equally good job on, say, anthropology, hamartiology or soteriology.

“Therefore isn’t this an a forteriori reason for thinking that the church was reliable in ‘word of mouth’ teaching during the same period?”

That assumes the early church did an adequate job on Christology and the Trinity because oral tradition was reliable, and it relied on oral tradition to get the job done. Is that Perry’s contention? If so, where’s the supporting argument?

“And if tradition is becoming obscure in this period, doesn’t this undermine the reliability of Gospel authorship since no Greek manuscript prior to 200 of the Gospels has a traditional designation?”

This is equivocal. It could either mean:

i) There are pre-200 AD MSS of the Gospels without the traditional designations.

Or:

ii) There are no pre-200 AD MSS of the Gospels.

Which does Perry mean? Martin Hengel has argued that all our extant Gospel MSS include the traditional designations. So that would be evidence for the originality of the titles.

“And isn’t the question, with what authority did the church “recognize” inspired works?”

Why is this a question of ecclesiastical authority? Doesn’t that beg the question?

“Appealing to ‘recognition’ only moves the question, it doesn’t answer it.”

True. Of course, Perry’s alternative only moves the question, too. Recognition of the canon shifts to recognition of the true church, or recognition of a true ecumenical council.

“And Patton seems to give away the farm when he seemingly admits that the apostolic teaching was passed on both in scripture and via tradition for the first 400 years. If this is so, why jettison what had been apostolically instituted practice and belief? It seems far too convenient.”

This is historically artificial. How does oral tradition actually operate? Are we talking about word-of-mouth for 400 years, where Jesus tells Peter something, who repeats it to Linus, who repeats it to Anacletus, who repeats it to Clement, who repeat it to Evaristus, and so and so forth, like Alex Haley in Roots?

Let’s take a comparison. Why, in the Gospels, do Jewish layman consult the scribes? Because the scribes had direct access to copies of the Bible. They transcribed the Bible. As a result, they memorized a lot of Scripture.

So, if you, as a layman, wanted to know the Mosaic law governing a particular situation, and you didn’t have direct access to a copy of the Pentateuch, you might ask one of the scribes. You would be getting your information by word-of-mouth.

But that doesn’t mean the scribes were getting their own information by word-of-mouth. To the contrary, oral transmission presupposed a written exemplar.

Same thing with the early church. Yes, you have a certain amount of oral transmission, but that’s dependent on written sources. The reason you could have oral transmission in the early church is because some Christians had copies of the Scriptures.

Let’ take another comparison. When Paul was traveling, he didn’t lug around a copy of the OT. That would have been too cumbersome.

Paul had memorized large portions of the OT. So he could quote from memory. This isn’t oral tradition in the sense that Moses said something to Joshua, who said something to Othniel…who said something to Ezra…who said something to Gamaliel, who said something to Paul—as if the OT was handed down by word-of-mouth.

Oral transmission is not a separate chain-of-custody. Rather, it depends on written sources to inform and refresh the memory of the tradent. The tradent is generally transmitting something he read. Something he committed to memory from a written source.

“If the rule of faith was transmitted via tradition, this seems to falsify Sola Scriptura, namely that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.”

i) At worst, this would only mean that the early church didn’t follow the proper rule of faith, not that sola Scriptura wasn’t the proper rule of faith.

ii) Perry is also playing a semantic bait-and-switch game. Oral transmission is not the same thing as Holy Tradition. And we don’t ordinarily use the word “tradition” for just any old word-of-mouth communication. A mother tells her daughter that if she sees her brother at school, she should tell him to pick up a gallon of milk on the way home. I suppose we could call that oral tradition if we wanted to, but it trivializes the concept.

iii) Perry also confuses access to Scripture with the primatial authority of Scripture. Suppose I’m shipwrecked on a desert island. My only access to Scripture are the Bible verses I memorized in Sunday School. Does the fact that a castaway lacks direct access to the Bible nullify sola Scriptura? No.

“Of course, Patton will argue that tradition wasn’t infallible but I don’t think this helps. First, if the latter wasn’t infallible, why think that the former is, if infallibility isn’t a necessary condition for reliably transmitting the apostolic teaching? If the rule of faith can be fallible, why think that Scripture must be?”

We don’t believe that Scripture is infallible because of some a priori argument that it must be infallible. It’s a de facto question. The spoken word can also be infallible. The oracles of Isaiah were infallible. That’s not the issue. This is not a question of what’s necessary, but what God has chosen to do or refrain from doing.

“On the other hand, if tradition is unreliable, this undermines the belief that Scripture is infallible since it is by those very means that Scripture was transmitted, identified and the basis upon which textual corrections we made against various heretical readings.”

Evangelicals don’t regard copies of the Bible as infallible.

“Added to this is the fact that various councils claim for themselves divine inspiration.”

That’s a very revealing admission. If Perry thinks that inspiration is a necessary condition for ecumenical councils, then Perry himself regards uninspired oral tradition as unreliable.

“But even if these things can be gotten around, it would still be the case admittedly that the rule of faith for the first four hundred years wasn’t only Scripture and wasn’t only infallible and that would be sufficient to falsify Sola Scriptura.”

That doesn’t follow for the above-stated reasons.

“Citing what this or that Bishop says in Orthodoxy seems to rest on a mistaken idea of authority in the Orthodox tradition. Just because a bishop says something doesn’t by itself settle the matter. There have been infallible laymen in the Orthodox Church as well. Patton seems to foist upon the Orthodox a more Catholic understanding of a magisterium.”

So we’re now on a quest to pin down the locus of Orthodox authority.

“On the former, no tradition, no magisterial body can settle matters with anything more than fallible authority.”

And suppose that’s how God wants it to be?

“Therefore, the judgments reached in this way are provisional and revisable and therefore represent a practical stability, which can always be re-opened. There isn’t any formal theological statement found in any Reformed confession that isn’t itself open to possible revision, and this includes the canon itself.”

That’s the case if that’s how God wants it to be. But is that God’s will for his people?

We can only judge matters of the basis of the best evidence that God has put at our disposal. That’s really out of my hands. But if God’s providence is unreliable, then there’s no more reason to put any stock in Orthodox church history. Perry’s scepticism cuts both ways.

Why not take the position that church history is written by the winners? That Perry’s Orthodox sources are partisan? That the good guys lost because they didn’t have the political connections?

Therefore, judgments reached by ecumenical councils are provisional and revisable. Every dogma can be reexamined.

“At the end of the chain of authority is the individual. No magisterial authority can trump private judgment in a normatively binding way.”

It’s not a question of ecclesiastical authority over against individual authority. It’s a question of where the truth lies, and forming beliefs on the basis of evidence and argument, according to our natural aptitudes and opportunities—which vary from person-to-person and place-to-place. We’re individually responsible to God, but our level of responsibility is person-variable. To whom much is given, much is required.

“If this wasn’t so, then the Reformers would have had no basis on which to judge that the church’s judgment was wrong and non-binding.”

You don’t need authority as long as you’re right.

“Positing Scripture as the ultimate source does nothing to touch this point. And to be clear, I am not arguing that everyone doesn’t judge for himself what he takes to be true. Rather, private judgment is the idea that the supremely normatively binding judgments on the conscience can only come from the individual himself (barring direct divine private revelation).”

Once again, that’s not how I’d formulate the principle. Scripture is the norm. Individual judgment is fallible, and it can also be sinful. (Same thing with collective judgments, e.g. ecumenical councils).

If I’m a married man who has an affair, and my pastor tells me I’m living in sin, he’s right and I’m wrong. In this case, what makes his judgment “normative” or “binding” is that it’s true, and what makes it true is that it’s true the norm of Scripture.

Scripture is binding on the conscience, and a true interpretation (“judgment”) thereof is binding on the conscience.

By the same token, there are cases where the layman is right and the pastor is wrong. A pastor or priest or bishop or council or pope can’t stand on his authority as the trump card.

“This is what it means to say that everyman is their own Pope.Consequently, to argue that I am not infallible either does no work here since to know I do not have to be infallible, but to form judgments which can bind the consciences of others, I would need to be.”

Even if this were the case, church discipline doesn’t depend on that level of certainty.

“Why think that I need to be infallible to understand infallible teaching? I don’t. But I would need to be infallible to judge in a way that was normatively binding on the consciences of other men and that seems fairly easy to establish in terms of what was in the mind of the church at councils.”

This makes two key assumptions—neither of which he defends:

i) The “mind of the church” represents the unit of normative judgment.

ii) Ecumenical councils successfully capture the mind of the church.

Why should we believe either proposition?

“It also seems to me that there are clear examples of doctrines held by Protestants that cannot be justified on the grounds of Sola Scriptura.”

Even if that were the case, it doesn’t invalidate sola Scriptura. If Israel was in breach of covenant, does that mean the Mosaic covenant was not a rule of faith which God imposed on his people?

“Jugulum’s bald claim that God never established an on-going body of judges and authoritative interpreters is not just a bald claim but is arguably false. Certainly in the OT there was such a body, which could only be trumped by a prophet extraordinarily commissioned (directly by God) or ordinarily commissioned, with the attestation of miracles such as the case with Elijah.”

Is Perry alluding to OT judges? But that undercuts his thesis.

i) OT judges had to apply the Mosaic law to various situations. They had the authority to do so. But their judicial rulings were fallible, and, in that respect, “provisional” and “revisable.” In principle, you could “reopen” the case.

ii) And a judicial ruling wasn’t necessarily binding on the conscience of the accused. An innocent man might be convicted.

“Jesus in Matt 23 seems to recognize that the Jewish leadership had such an interpretative role.”

I prefer Nolland’s interpretation. Cf. The Gospel of Matthew, pp922-23.

“In fact Jesus establishes his own Sanhedrin in the 70 disciples.”

Where was the ecclesiastical “Sanhedrin” in the early church?

“Further Paul gives ample evidence of a divine gift being had through ordination (2 tim 1:6).”

And what gift would that be? We need to exegete the text. For a good analysis, cf. P. Towner, The Letters to Timothy & Titus, 458f.

“And not to mention the fact that the earliest council was believed to have divine guidance and to be the mechanism for resolving disputes in a normatively divine manner.”

If this is an allusion to Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem was composed of Apostles, elders, and a sibling of Jesus—not a bunch of bishops, under the heavy hand of the Emperor. So the analogy falls apart at the critical point of comparison.

“The cessation of the apostolic office wouldn’t imply a lack of divine inspiration in the church, which is exactly and explicitly what the ecumenical councils that Protestants profess fealty to claim for themselves.”

i) Many things are hypothetically possible. That’s not the point. It’s a factual question.

Perry, himself, would insist on discontinuities between the Apostolic and subapostolic age. He’s not a Montanist. He doesn’t believe in a continuous succession of Apostles. He doesn’t believe in continuous inscripturation. Just because something is theoretically repeatable doesn’t mean that God repeats the same thing ad infinitum. Let’s have another round of Ten Egyptian Plagues—just because I can!

ii) I don’t profess “fealty” to the ecumenical councils. I agree with them when they agree with Scripture.

“I have to wonder what is the nature of the authority that Protestant think that ministers today operate by-human or divine? And if divine, to what degree, if any? And where does this divine authority come from and how is it transmitted? What is the biblical justification for this view? In short, if Protestants were right it is hard to see todays ministers as continuing the apostolic ministry.”

A minister is authoritative to the degree that he rightly teaches and applies the word of God. His authority is strictly derivative.

A minister is supposed to have a certain aptitude to teach. He should generally cultivate that aptitude through training. In principle, he has the authority of an expert witness.

Now, there are some bright, well-read laymen whose theological know-how compares favorably with their pastor. And there are some layman in cognate fields, like Classics, Egyptology, Assyriology, &c. who may enjoy a far more expert knowledge of the Bible than the average pastor.

52 comments:

  1. Where was the ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in the early church?

    Acts 15? :-\

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where was the ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in the early church?

    Acts 15? :-\

    ****************

    No-go. Perry said the 70. The Council of Jerusalem wasn't composed of the 70 disciples. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Council of Jerusalem wasn't composed of the 70 disciples.

    Really?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, really. Read Acts, the Jerusalem Council took place after the First Missionary Journey, after the death of James, the brother of John, etc.

    So, no, it was not composed of the 70 Disciples to which Perry referred.

    And if you were to argue that successors were appointed, you'd need to document who they were,etc.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It should also be noted that the entire church body at Jerusalem participated in the decision which was contrary to what came to be the standard operating procedure of ecumenical councils which allowed only bishops or their proxies to participate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Uhm, ... James, the Brother of God was there, and so were Paul and Barnabas and Silas. The Bible says that the Apostles and elders gathered together there at Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4). The Twelve were also present, with Peter delivering a speech. Paul and Barnabas also have a speech (before Peter's), and James, the Brother of God, deliveres the final, decisive, conclusive speech (after Peter's).

    Moses, the Law-giver, the founder of the Old Covenant, surrounded himself by 70 elders.
    [The Synedrium was considered to be the continuation of the office of those 70 elders].
    Christ, the Grace-giver (John 1:17), the founder of the New Testament, surrounded Himself by 70 disciples.
    It's a typo.

    I can't understand why or what You don't understand. :-\

    ReplyDelete
  7. Uhm, ... Saint-and-Sinner, the last time I read Eusebius, he states that the number of Priests and Deacons was uncountable, and that Emperors gathered and presided those Synods for the social sake of the Empire and its subjects in the first place ... :-\

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve rightly distinguishes between oral tradition and oral history, a distinction Richard Bauckham makes in his Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006), such as in his discussion of Papias. When somebody like Papias refers to information he had attained through oral transmission, he's referring to a different concept than what modern Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics advocate. I wrote a post on this subject a couple of years ago:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/12/richard-bauckhams-book-and-roman.html

    Here are some sources arguing for sola scriptura:

    http://www.reformed.plus.com/triablogue/ebooks.html

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/04/sola-scriptura-by-implication.html

    There are a lot of problems with the appeals to Acts 15 that are commonly made by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. For example, the Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar John McGuckin notes:

    "It is often said that the meeting of the apostles (Acts 15) to discuss whether circumcision was required of Gentile converts was the primary model of the church's practice of leaders' meetings for debate and resolution of problems, but the example of the 'Council of Jerusalem' is not alluded to in patristic writing until the fifth century. It is more likely that the Hellenistic world (organized as a chain of cities in dependence on the emperor) provided a ready example of the necessity of provincial leaders to establish common policies by meetings of town councils and occasions when delegates could represent the town to the provincial governor concerning regular fiscal and political affairs." (The Westminster Handbook To Patristic Theology [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004], p. 77)

    See, also, the comments of George Dragas in the Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999), pp. 359-360. He gives examples of later councils being rejected, then accepted or accepted, then rejected.

    And:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/in-search-of-true-church.html

    And the comments section of the following thread:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/unity-of-one-true-church.html

    Also, some of the readers may not realize that we've discussed some of these issues with Perry Robinson in the past. There are a lot of relevant threads in the archives.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just a few observations/questions:
    1) Observation: Steve, your post seems to wish to muddy the waters with regard to authority--Scripture or otherwise. You seem to assert that Scripture is the final/ultimate (better word??) authority and then completely deconstruct other alternatives (Tradition--oral or otherwise). In other words, you wish to shift the burden onto those who claim tradition. Those who claim tradition, likewise, have attempted to shift the burden onto you. Their point, it seems to me, is simple: if Sola Scriptura is your guiding principle, then where in Scripture is Sola Scriptura spelled out? Where is the grammatical historical perspective spelled out? I'm not sure you answer this directly. You bring up a number of places where Perry's interlocutor has phrased things in an imprecise way. You have demonstrated problems with accepting all of tradition. But you have not proven, it seems to me, Sola Scriptura as a concrete, universal, identifiable "rule" of Scripture.

    1a)Perry: “If Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, who is the judge that is to apply the rule?”
    Steve: "Must there be a uniform answer to that question?"
    Me: Well, yes, I'd hope the answer from your corner would be Scripture--properly exegeted Scripture where trained and informed exegetes could come to a concrete "answer" to a given Scriptural "problem." What other answer would you prescribe. If not, then we really start to wade into the realm of relativism. And I'm starting to be convinced that this is where Sola Scriptura leads (with the exception of the claim of Sola Scriptura).
    I may be able to agree with you here: "It’s either objectively true or false that Scripture alone is the rule of faith which God has imposed on his church. How many early Christians may or may not have seen it that way is irrelevant to where the truth lies."
    So where ought we turn to affirm this rule of faith imposed on the Church? To Scripture? But now we're back to square one: where should I look for this rule of Sola Scriptura? And then, you know routine, which translation, which manuscript, the masoretic text, etc.? (I don't expect you to answer these; i put them out there because we both know where all of this leads).


    2) "b) No church officer (or church body) can invoke ecclesiastical authority as a shortcut for responsible exegesis."
    ***I don't think anybody would argue with this principle. But then the charges of irresponsible/ahistorical exegesis is in the eye of the beholder. Do you really think a lot of Pauline exegesis was embraced by his fellow Pharisees? Christ as Jonah is one of the flimsiest Christological references in the Gospels. I mean, come one, three days in the belly of a great fish corresponds to three days in Hell? But that appears to be what he's doing. And I don't abject. But I imagine his contemporaries would say, "Oh, come one, now he's just making sh . . er, stuff up."

    3) "So, if you, as a layman, wanted to know the Mosaic law governing a particular situation, and you didn’t have direct access to a copy of the Pentateuch, you might ask one of the scribes. You would be getting your information by word-of-mouth.

    But that doesn’t mean the scribes were getting their own information by word-of-mouth. To the contrary, oral transmission presupposed a written exemplar."

    ***But now you're separating "teaching" from Scripture, and I think this is a mistake. Any Scripture handed down would have been handed down through a cipher. Pure "Scripture" handed down would have been a funny concept, I think (See both E.P. Sanders and Jacob Neusner on this one). No one but the Saducees demanded Scripture only. With the exception of the Saducees, Scripture (Written Torah) separated from oral tradition (Oral Torah) was not Torah, and it was not Judaism. When this viewpoint began in Judaism is up for argument (Orthodox Jews argue Oral tradition from Sinai, for example), but by the time Alexander swept through (333 BC), most scholars agree that--again, with the exception of the Saducees--belief in oral tradition was widespread and readily accepted; indeed, the Saducean position was the anomaly.

    My point: getting back to your original point: "getting one's Scripture from a scribe or a Pharisee, or a Lawyer wasn't problematic. They weren't worried that the text was corrupted. They were worried about the teaching that was inherent in the Scripture cited to "solve" a certain "problem."

    ++"Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
    He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?"
    He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
    And he said to him, "You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live."

    I'm not trying to proof-text anything here other than there is no real exegesis going on--yet they are still talking about Scripture. Same with the temptation in the desert. Satan cites Scripture to prove a point; Jesus cites it back at him. No need to give context, explication, no charges of proof-texting, etc. They both seem to know what is being said.

    So when all is said and done, Steve, and I do mean this with respect (my film posts, as I hope has become clear, were tongue-in-cheek), I'm not sure you've actually proven the validity of Sola Scriptura, nor have I been convinced why I should even consider it. All you've done is muddied the waters. And I'm fine with that. But when the waters are muddied, it seems to me, that turning to tradition (be it Jewish or Christian or Jewish and Christian) is quite helpful in living a life within the faith. In other words, Sola Scriptura has seemingly offered something radically concrete; yet, because it fails to live up to its own concrete claims (by its own concrete means--i.e., Sola Scriptura via Sola Scriptura), it falls flat for some of us.

    I've read through your archives and have searched for a concrete answer to the primacy of Sola Scriptura, but I have not found a convincing argument.

    So with your response to Perry, I have found more muddy waters, but not an actual argument for Sola Scriptura--and most certainly not from Scripture itself.

    I like very much what you do here, Steve. Please believe that I'm not being polemical here (I was indeed polemical with the film stuff--but I was just joking about, which seemed to be picked up by you.).

    All my best,
    Dementophobist

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jason, I understand that You just wanted to blow some steam off, speaking what was on Your mind regarding Acts 15, but that's not what my/our concern was about.

    As for having meetings and councils or synods, I'm not saying that Judaism invented the concept. (Slavs had zadrugas, Romanian peasants leaving in villages have councils of elders and seatings of women). Arabs are ruled by sheiks (elders).

    I think I've warned You already once (or one of You anyway) about making comparisons [or antynomies] between anything and everything: it's sickening and no sanity can be extracted from them.

    My/our concern was about the obvious presence of the Apostles and elders at the Jerusalem Council

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Uhm, ... Saint-and-Sinner, the last time I read Eusebius, he states that the number of Priests and Deacons was uncountable, and that Emperors gathered and presided those Synods for the social sake of the Empire and its subjects in the first place"

    Uhm...the last time I read Philip Schaff, he states that the priests and deacons could not ***participate*** (notice that I did not say "attend") unless they were proxies for their bishops:

    “But with the advance of the hierarchical spirit, this republican feature gradually vanished. After the council of Nicaea (325) bishops alone had seat and voice, and the priests appear hereafter merely as secretaries, or advisers, or representatives of their bishops. The bishops, moreover, did not act as representatives of their churches, nor in the name of the body of the believers, as formerly, but in their own right as successors of the apostles…As the episcopate culminated in the primacy, so the synodical system rose into the oecumenical councils, which represented the whole church of the Roman empire. But these could not be held till persecution ceased, and the emperor became the patron of Christianity. The first was the celebrated council of Nicaea, in the year 325. The state gave legal validity to the decrees of councils, and enforced them if necessary by all its means of coercion. But the Roman government protected only the Catholic or orthodox church, except during the progress of the Arian and other controversies, before the final result was reached by the decision of an oecumenical Synod convened by the emperor.” (bold emphasis mine)
    -Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 2.4.54
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vi.xiv.html

    The Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (obviously an Eastern Orthodox source) concurs:

    “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.” (emphasis mine)
    -M. Prokurat et al. Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (Scarecrow Press 1996), 49-50.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dementophobist wrote:

    "Their point, it seems to me, is simple: if Sola Scriptura is your guiding principle, then where in Scripture is Sola Scriptura spelled out?...But you have not proven, it seems to me, Sola Scriptura as a concrete, universal, identifiable 'rule' of Scripture."

    Why would sola scriptura have to be "spelled out" or "concrete"? A probable implication would be sufficient.

    You write:

    "But then the charges of irresponsible/ahistorical exegesis is in the eye of the beholder. Do you really think a lot of Pauline exegesis was embraced by his fellow Pharisees? Christ as Jonah is one of the flimsiest Christological references in the Gospels."

    Christ and Paul had authority that modern interpreters don't have. Steve was addressing how we judge modern interpretations.

    You write:

    "So when all is said and done, Steve, and I do mean this with respect (my film posts, as I hope has become clear, were tongue-in-cheek), I'm not sure you've actually proven the validity of Sola Scriptura, nor have I been convinced why I should even consider it. All you've done is muddied the waters....I've read through your archives and have searched for a concrete answer to the primacy of Sola Scriptura, but I have not found a convincing argument. So with your response to Perry, I have found more muddy waters, but not an actual argument for Sola Scriptura--and most certainly not from Scripture itself."

    He was responding to something Perry Robinson wrote. Why should he be expected to "prove the validity of sola scriptura" in that context?

    You must not have spent much time searching the archives. We've written a lot of material arguing for sola scriptura.

    You write:

    "But when the waters are muddied, it seems to me, that turning to tradition (be it Jewish or Christian or Jewish and Christian) is quite helpful in living a life within the faith."

    It "seems to you" that turning to "tradition" is "quite helpful in living a life within the faith"? That's a vague assertion for somebody who claims to want things "concrete" and "spelled out" when it comes to sola scriptura.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "With the exception of the Saducees, Scripture (Written Torah) separated from oral tradition (Oral Torah) was not Torah, and it was not Judaism. When this viewpoint began in Judaism is up for argument (Orthodox Jews argue Oral tradition from Sinai, for example), but by the time Alexander swept through (333 BC), most scholars agree that--again, with the exception of the Saducees--belief in oral tradition was widespread and readily accepted; indeed, the Saducean position was the anomaly."

    Wasn't that the very position Christ was arguing against in Matthew 15?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dementophobist,


    They can't prove it. This is why they want to shift the burden on non-sola scripturans.




    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  15. he states that the priests and deacons could not ***participate*** (notice that I did not say "attend") unless they were proxies for their bishops

    St. & Sinner, given Your distinction between the two words, do You see anyone then, (save for James, Peter, Paul and Barnabas) "participating" at the Council?

    Wasn't that the very position Christ was arguing against in Matthew 15?

    No. Jesus' support of certain unwritten (or written but unbilical/uncanonical) Jewish traditions is attested in the Gospels. The same goes for Paul in his Epistles.


    There is one more (vital) thing that I would like to mention here: bishops present the traditional view of the church they're pastoring at a gathering of bishops. When they did fail to do just that, the flock did not follow them (as it happened during the Arian and Iconoclast persecutions, for instance, when the believing faithful chose to abide by the religion of their fathers and forefathers and to follow unordained monastics instead of bishops that proved to be nothing more than wolves in sheeps clothing). Their job there is to "give witness". Pure and simple. (Scholasticism changed the stress from comunity to individual and from tradition to deduction, but that's not a problem for the first millennium, nor a problem for the East and Orient until this day).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Uhm, ... James, the Brother of God was there, and so were Paul and Barnabas and Silas. The Bible says that the Apostles and elders gathered together there at Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4). The Twelve were also present, with Peter delivering a speech. Paul and Barnabas also have a speech (before Peter's), and James, the Brother of God, deliveres the final, decisive, conclusive speech (after Peter's).

    You really need to read your Bible.

    Acts 15 does not name the Apostles present. It merely states that they went to the apostles there gathered.

    James, the Brother of Christ, was not a believer at the time the 70 were appointed,Lvka. James was not an Apostle. He was merely the spokesman for the church of Jerusalem there gathered, presumably "bishop of Jerusalem." He was merely the leading elder of the church.

    James, the brother of John, to whom I referred is listed as being martyred in Acts 12:2. So, he was already dead at the time the Council convened. So, "The 12" were not present. Assuming that all of them were present, and the text never says that they were, they would be numbered as Eleven, and only that if you include Matthias, the successor of Judas Iscariot.

    Luke never mentions the identity of any of the 70.

    Your communion has tried to name them. But we have no way of verifying the names. So, James the Brother of Christ being among them is yet another of the countless, unverifiable assertions that you and others have offered up. Eusebius mentions him, but then we still have no way of verifying it.

    Unless you have a list of the Seventy that we can verify, the presumption is that, no, the Seventy in Luke is not identical with the apostles and elders gathered at Jerusalem. Indeed, given that Luke himself in mentioned in some lists, that makes it even more doubtful that the claim is valid, since when Luke writes about events at which he was present, he writes in first person.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Moses, the Law-giver, the founder of the Old Covenant, surrounded himself by 70 elders.
    [The Synedrium was considered to be the continuation of the office of those 70 elders].
    Christ, the Grace-giver (John 1:17), the founder of the New Testament, surrounded Himself by 70 disciples.
    It's a typo.

    I can't understand why or what You don't understand. :-\


    What I don't understand, and apparently you do not either, is how you get from the 70 mentioned in Luke to an ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in Acts 15.

    So, either you (a) are saying Perry is incorrect or (b) the 70 in Luke and the persons in Acts 15 are identical. Pick one and provide the supporting argument.

    ReplyDelete
  18. They can't prove it. This is why they want to shift the burden on non-sola scripturans.

    1. On the contrary, we've argued our position a number of times.

    Is Scripture infallible? Yes.
    It's it normative? Yes
    Is it sufficient? Scripture says "Yes."

    And we've answered your appeals to "tradition" from Scripture, viz the Thessalonian letters at least 3 times now, and quite soundly.

    We do not deny the authority of creeds, etc. We deny their infallibility.

    You all, by way of contrast, can't agree on a single canon of Scripture.

    You can't show us where Scripture defines Orthodoxy as the one true holy apostolic church.

    In fact, all you've been able to offer us are vague claims that we have to be Orthodox to understand Orthodoxy, and all sorts of nonsense.

    We get back to your fideistic claims about your communion - overt ecclesiolatry. We'll take Scripture over that any day, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "St. & Sinner, given Your distinction between the two words, do You see anyone then, (save for James, Peter, Paul and Barnabas) "participating" at the Council?"

    "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, ***with the whole church***..." (v.22)

    Also, the word for elders in this verse is the term used (later) to describe "priests" in the patristic era.

    "No. Jesus' support of certain unwritten (or written but unbilical/uncanonical) Jewish traditions is attested in the Gospels. The same goes for Paul in his Epistles."

    Steve has already dealt with such spooftexting by your fellow Orthodox and Roman Catholics in the past.

    The point of Matthew 15 is this: the very law that the Pharisees cite, a law later recorded in the Mishnah, was said by them to have been handed down from God to Solomon and then from him to the scribes who in turn passed it on to the next generation of scribes. It was claimed to be an infallible, 'Sacred' Tradition. The claim is exactly like that of both Rome and Constantinople, and yet, Christ judged that Tradition by Scripture which meant that, to Him, Scripture was perspicuous enough to judge a supposedly 'Sacred' Tradition.


    We've been over all of these arguments before, and you still keep throwing up all the same arguments without responding to our counter-arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "They can't prove it. This is why they want to shift the burden on non-sola scripturans."

    Everyone recognizes Scripture as an infallible rule-of-faith.

    Not everyone agrees that 'Sacred' Tradition (so-called) is an infallible rule-of-faith.

    It is up to those who wish to add to the number of infallible rules-of-faith to prove their position.

    Some of us here have argued repeatedly that SS is true by default until proven otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Also,there are other problems with identifying the 70 in Luke with the members of the council convened in Jerusalem.

    1. We're not sure if the number is 70 or 72.

    2. And the number 70 for the Sanhedrin may not be correct, because the presiding officer would be a member.

    3. And the biggest problem is the need for a supporting argument that the Seventy/2 in Luke 10 are appointed as (ruling) elders. The text shows they are appointed as missionaries, nothing more nothing less. It never says anything about them being a "Sanhedrin" invested with ecclesiastical authority to govern the church/es from that point on, much less those persons comprising the same persons @ Jerusalem.

    Indeed, if there is any connection to Acts, it's to the Table of Nations in Acts 2, for at the time, they believed the world composed of 70 nations. So the Lord appoints 70 missionaries/ambassadors to 70 nations - not a Sanhedrin that "surrounded" him.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jason wrote (and thanks for the reply):
    "Why would sola scriptura have to be "spelled out" or "concrete"? A probable implication would be sufficient."

    So, and I could be incredibly dense here, spell it out for me? What does a "probable implication" look like from Sola Scriptura. To be honest, I'm giggling while I write "probable implication from Sola Scriptura." You have to admit, it's funny. It would be like writing:, "From a non-conformist view of Tradition . . ."

    I did read the archives; it's not there weren't answers; it's just none of them were very satisying or consistent. Everything else here I read is VERY consistent (an admirable trait--even when I disagree with both the ends and the means). But on this Sola Scriptura thing I'm not finding an answer that stays true to the logical purity of this blog. Put another way: if I were to put Steve's logical integrity up against the arguments for Sola Scriptura, then his own arguments would fail miserably (again, I think--and am willing to be correcred).

    Easy solution: you give me the best "probable implication" of Sola Scriptura from Sola Scriptura (and I'm assuming we have to use Sola Scriptura and not any sort of verifiable biblical hermeneutics from Second Temple on), and I'm happy to evaluate it on your own terms.

    I do hpoe, Jason, that you don't detect any rancor in my post. I may be uniformed; I may be ignorant of reformed hermeneutics; I may be uniformed of Church history and historical exegesis; but I bring no rancor here. I am very interested in arguments for Sola Scriptura. I just happen to think Perry has gotten the best of your crew on this point.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Evangelicals don’t regard copies of the Bible as infallible."

    So you have no infallible bible.

    "Yes, texts can be corrupted, but there are various criteria to identify textual corruption. See Tov on the OT and Metzger on the NT. What are Perry’s criteria for the corruption of oral tradition?"

    1) These "criteria" can only reach as far back in time as the existing manuscripts. Nobody can say what readings existed in manuscripts that no longer exist.

    2) These criteria depend on the wide range of manuscript evidence that has only been able to be assembled in modern times. If the church lacked proper criteria till the 20th century, then you haven't got much right to be pointing the finger at criteria for traditions.

    3) Even then these "criteria" are inconclusive in many cases.

    4) Obviously Orthodoxy has a firm criteria since they are comparatively unified in what they believe.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Why would sola scriptura have to be "spelled out" or "concrete"? A probable implication would be sufficient."

    If that's the best your hermeneutic has to offer, then you certainly could have no objection to me making a personal assessment as to what traditions are "probably" apostolic, based on age and widespread belief in the early church.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gene M. Bridges,

    The Scriptures call by the name of Apostle more people than the Twelve, and these are obviously from the Seventy, by way of elimination.

    Paul was such an Apostle, tough he (just like James, the Brother of God) was not one of the initial Seventy. (From the Twelve one fell away, and another one, Matia, was set in his place). We believe that the same happened for the Seventy also, since many of His followers and disciples left Him in John 6.

    For James the Just in particular, Acts 15 and Galatians 1:19 are enough.

    I also don't understand what's still unclear: the Synagogue was ruled by a Synedrium of 70 elders; the Church by Synods of 12 & 70 Apsotles, and elders. (I can't make it clearer or more obvious than it already is). The Apostles and elders gathered together at Jreusalem --> can it be said any clearer?

    As for the 12 being meant to preach the Gospel to the 12 Tribes of Israel, and for the 70 to preach the message of salvation to the 70 nations of the Gentile world, that's yet another obvious truth [Galatians 2:7-8], (and I'm glad that we agree at least on that one).


    -------------
    St. & Sinner,

    It seemed good to the whole Church what the Ecumenical Councils decided also (otherwise they would not have been known as Ecumenical in the first place), but we don't see anyone who's not either an Apostle or an elder taking a stance at these Synods. (The reception of a Synod by the Body of Christ is indeed a necessary condition for the acceptance of the Synod; otherwise it would be just another rubber-synod. The Saints have to give their "Amen").

    And no, no-one ever proved wrong, nor can it be proven wrong, (because it's true and it's scriptural and it's biblical and it's written black on white) that both Christ, as well as Paul made a clear use of Jewish unwritten (or unbiblical) traditions:

    -- the chair of Moses is a clear example.

    -- likewise the influence of Maccabean-era literature on Hebrews ("BOTH Priest AND King").

    -- Paul's mention of Iannes and Iambres.

    -- Paul mentioning of martyrs that were cut assunder (from an Isaiah-apocrypha).

    -- Jude's mention of not just one, but two apocrypha: one on Moses, another one on Enoch.

    [These statements are as clear and true and verifiable as can be].

    ---------------
    Gene M. Briges,

    You threw two irritating stements in my face:

    You really need to read your Bible.

    Acts 15 does not name the Apostles present. It merely states that they went to the apostles there gathered.

    Now, friend, if You have trouble seeing, and You're unable to spot the repeating names of PETER, PAUL, and BARNABAS being mentioned there, I can't honestly help You.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh, yeah, and ... St. & Sinner, another thing:

    I'm not here to talk about "the point", "the comma", or the "true meaning" of Matthew 23:2 ... *ALL* that I'm arguing for is the very existence of that verse ... can You at least grant me that? That that verse actually exists, and that it's there, black on white, on the pages of Holy Scripture? :-|

    -----
    Also, Gene,

    can You at least act and pretend as if Acts 15 actually lists Peter, Paul and Barnabeas, ... AND that all these are Apostles? :-|

    Thank You. :-|

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dementophobist wrote:

    "So, and I could be incredibly dense here, spell it out for me? What does a 'probable implication' look like from Sola Scriptura. To be honest, I'm giggling while I write 'probable implication from Sola Scriptura.' You have to admit, it's funny. It would be like writing:, 'From a non-conformist view of Tradition . . .'"

    You'll have to explain why we're supposed to think that "probable implication from Sola Scriptura" is comparable to "'From a non-conformist view of Tradition". Sola scriptura doesn't involve a rejection of the implications of scripture. Many Protestants accept the Westminster Confession, for example, which tells us:

    "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture...All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." (1:6-7)

    As the Westminster Confession puts it, not everything has to be "expressly set down". If somebody considers scripture an infallible revelation of God, why wouldn't he accept the implications of scripture?

    You write:

    "I did read the archives; it's not there weren't answers; it's just none of them were very satisying or consistent."

    I doubt that you've "read the archives" in any relevant sense. Steve's defense of sola scriptura that I linked to above, for example, is around 200 pages long. I doubt that you just read it, after you began following this thread. Maybe you read it earlier, but if you did read it earlier, in addition to the rest of "the archives", then I don't know why you seem to be so mistaken about what sola scriptura means and why you're being so vague in dismissing our arguments from the archives. If you know what we've argued, then why don't you be more specific in explaining why you reject our arguments? Why just make vague references to how our arguments allegedly aren't "very satisfying or consistent"?

    You write:

    "But on this Sola Scriptura thing I'm not finding an answer that stays true to the logical purity of this blog."

    As I've explained elsewhere (in the archives of this blog, for example), the nature of the issue under discussion doesn't allow for the same level of "logical purity" on this issue that we can have on some other issues. For example, when a historian limits himself to the writings of Justin Martyr in the process of discussing what Justin Martyr believed, what level of "logical purity" can he have in deciding to limit himself to those writings? It's possible that an oral tradition exists relevant to Justin Martyr's beliefs. The historian will make a judgment about what's probable. His judgment on that matter doesn't have to be as "logically pure" as his judgments about a mathematical or philosophical issue, for example. Christianity is a historical religion. It involves probability judgments. And some conclusions will seem more probable than others. Sola scriptura doesn't have to be as "logically pure" as other beliefs in order to be the most reasonable conclusion to the dispute over what our rule of faith ought to be.

    You write:

    "Easy solution: you give me the best 'probable implication' of Sola Scriptura from Sola Scriptura (and I'm assuming we have to use Sola Scriptura and not any sort of verifiable biblical hermeneutics from Second Temple on), and I'm happy to evaluate it on your own terms."

    I don't know what your comment in parentheses means. You'll have to expand upon it.

    If you've read the archives, as you claim, then you should know how I would argue for sola scriptura. But for the benefit of other readers, and since I doubt you've read much relevant material from the archives, I'll summarize my position. We have convincing evidence for the Biblical documents that we don't have for other proposed sources, such as Roman Catholic extra-Biblical tradition and Eastern Orthodox extra-Biblical tradition. If we have a convincing reason to accept the gospel of John as scripture, for example, whereas we don't have any convincing reason to accept the Assumption of Mary as Sacred Tradition, then we don't need a Biblical passage that specifically tells us to accept the former and reject the latter. Our acceptance of the one and rejection of the other are implications of broader principles. Jesus' comments about Old Testament scripture in the gospels, for example, don't have to name the books contained in the Old Testament canon in order for those comments to have implications for the canonical books once we determine what they are. There are Biblical passages that refer to the authority of extra-Biblical material, such as the oral teachings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Jesus, but we don't possess tape recordings or videos of such oral teaching. Our judgment about what rule of faith to follow is based on what's available to us today, not what was available to other people in the past. If scripture teaches the Divine inspiration of sources A, B, and C, but source A is all that we have access to today, then our following A alone is an implication of scripture. If somebody wants us to believe that source B is still available as well, then he carries the burden of proof. There's a lot of material in our archives about why we don't accept the claims Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox make about their extra-Biblical traditions.

    ReplyDelete
  28. JJ wrote:

    "If that's the best your hermeneutic has to offer, then you certainly could have no objection to me making a personal assessment as to what traditions are 'probably' apostolic, based on age and widespread belief in the early church."

    That judgment would involve more than "age and widespread belief in the early church". You'd have to consider the potential motives and societal influences of the sources involved, for example, as we do with other historical matters.

    And I haven't denied that the principles I've outlined are applicable to non-Biblical material. See the archives of this blog for many discussions of the evidence relevant to extra-Biblical tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Also, Gene,

    can You at least act and pretend as if Acts 15 actually lists Peter, Paul and Barnabeas, ... AND that all these are Apostles? :-|

    Thank You. :-|"

    You originally said "the twelve" were present. You really have no way of verifying this, since the only ones mentioned are Peter & Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  30. DEMENTOPHOBIST SAID:

    “Just a few observations/questions:_1) Observation: Steve, your post seems to wish to muddy the waters with regard to authority--Scripture or otherwise.”

    No, I just question Perry’s gratuitous assumptions. He tries to frame every issue regarding sola Scriptura as an issue over authority. “Normativity.” I disagree.

    “You seem to assert that Scripture is the final/ultimate (better word??) authority and then completely deconstruct other alternatives (Tradition--oral or otherwise).”

    How would that “muddy the waters”?

    “In other words, you wish to shift the burden onto those who claim tradition.”

    I’m not “shifting” the burden. Rather, I’m pointing out that Perry made a number of gratuitous assumptions in the way he chose to frame the issue. He needs to justify his assumptions.

    I also pointing out that one can raise parallel objections to his own position.

    “Those who claim tradition, likewise, have attempted to shift the burden onto you.”

    True. They want a free ride.

    “Their point, it seems to me, is simple: if Sola Scriptura is your guiding principle, then where in Scripture is Sola Scriptura spelled out?”

    No, that wasn’t Perry’s point. You’re interpolating your own agenda into this debate. You’re free to change the subject, but don’t pretend that this is how Perry chose to frame the issue.

    “Where is the grammatical historical perspective spelled out?”

    Once again, that question is extraneous to Perry’s post.

    “I'm not sure you answer this directly.”

    Why would I answer questions he never posed?

    “You bring up a number of places where Perry's interlocutor has phrased things in an imprecise way. You have demonstrated problems with accepting all of tradition. But you have not proven, it seems to me, Sola Scriptura as a concrete, universal, identifiable ‘rule’ of Scripture.”

    Naturally, since that was never the stated aim of my reply. Perry raised a number of objections to sola Scriptura. I responded to him at the level at which he leveled his objections.

    “Well, yes, I'd hope the answer from your corner would be Scripture--properly exegeted Scripture where trained and informed exegetes could come to a concrete ‘answer’ to a given Scriptural ‘problem.’ What other answer would you prescribe. If not, then we really start to wade into the realm of relativism. And I'm starting to be convinced that this is where Sola Scriptura leads (with the exception of the claim of Sola Scriptura).”

    You’re ignoring the context of Perry’s question. It’s a trick question. A trip-wire question—mined with his gratuitous assumptions. He wants to set up a false dichotomy. Either the “mind of the church” (e.g. the church speaking through an ecumenical council) is the judge or else the autonomous mind of the individual is the judge. He will then argue for the former, by process of elimination, by attacking the latter.

    Given that framework, I’d say there is no uniform “judge.” Sometimes a bishop is right. Sometimes a council is right. Sometimes a layman is right. What makes them right or wrong is their correspondence, or lack thereof, to the teaching of Scripture.

    “And then, you know routine, which translation, which manuscript, the masoretic text, etc.?”

    What make you think that sola Scriptura depends on a particular translation or MS or textual tradition?

    “I don't think anybody would argue with this principle.”

    To the contrary, high-churchmen are committed to whatever sacred tradition or holy tradition commits them to. And they can only defend this by a naked appeal to ecclesiastical authority. Responsible exegesis is a threat to their position.

    “But then the charges of irresponsible/ahistorical exegesis is in the eye of the beholder. Do you really think a lot of Pauline exegesis was embraced by his fellow Pharisees? Christ as Jonah is one of the flimsiest Christological references in the Gospels. I mean, come one, three days in the belly of a great fish corresponds to three days in Hell? But that appears to be what he's doing. And I don't abject. But I imagine his contemporaries would say, Oh, come one, now he's just making sh . . er, stuff up’."

    I’m not going to go down a rabbit trails chasing every instance of apostolic exegesis that you happen to think is “flimsy.” That was no part of Perry’s argument.

    Moreover, Gregory Beale and D.A. Carson have edited a Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament in which various contributors explain the way in which apostolic exegesis is true to grammatico-historical exegesis. So I don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

    “But now you're separating ‘teaching’ from Scripture, and I think this is a mistake. Any Scripture handed down would have been handed down through a cipher. Pure ‘Scripture’ handed down would have been a funny concept, I think (See both E.P. Sanders and Jacob Neusner on this one). No one but the Saducees demanded Scripture only. With the exception of the Saducees, Scripture (Written Torah) separated from oral tradition (Oral Torah) was not Torah, and it was not Judaism. When this viewpoint began in Judaism is up for argument (Orthodox Jews argue Oral tradition from Sinai, for example), but by the time Alexander swept through (333 BC), most scholars agree that--again, with the exception of the Saducees--belief in oral tradition was widespread and readily accepted; indeed, the Saducean position was the anomaly.”

    I see you can’t follow the argument. Did I mention the scribes to illustrate sola scriptura? No. I brought up the scribes to illustrate the relation between oral transmission and textual transmission. Pay attention.

    Orality was not a separation channel of dissemination which operated on its own apart from textuality. Rather, it depended on written sources. Perry treated them in isolation. Stick to the argument I made instead of going off on a tangent.

    “They weren't worried that the text was corrupted.”

    The sopherim and the Massoretes were worried about textual corruption. Do you think their concern just fell out of the sky? No Jewish scribes before them were concerned about the accurate transcription of God’s word?

    Anyway, you’re changing the subject. The question at issue was the mode of transmission—whether oral or written—and how these interrelate. Pay attention.

    “I'm not sure you've actually proven the validity of Sola Scriptura.”

    I never set out to prove sola Scriptura in my reply to Perry, since that wouldn’t be a reply to Perry. It wouldn’t be responsive to what he wrote.

    “But when the waters are muddied, it seems to me, that turning to tradition (be it Jewish or Christian or Jewish and Christian) is quite helpful in living a life within the faith.”

    So you think religion is a raffle in which you reach into the spinning basket, pull out a random ticket, and follow that tradition as if it’s true? If it happens to be Catholicism, you join the Knights of Malta and kill Saracens to reclaim the Holy Land for the Blessed Virgin—but if it happens to be Anabaptism, you milk cows, drive a horse-and-buggy, and preach flower-power to the suicide bombers?

    You don’t have the right to subcontract your religious duties to a second party. You and I are individually answerable to God. On Judgment Day we can’t say to God, “Sorry, Boss, that’s not my department. Talk to my lawyer!”

    You need to make a good faith effort to be true to God’s word, to the best of your ability.

    “In other words, Sola Scriptura has seemingly offered something radically concrete; yet, because it fails to live up to its own concrete claims (by its own concrete means--i.e., Sola Scriptura via Sola Scriptura), it falls flat for some of us.__I've read through your archives and have searched for a concrete answer to the primacy of Sola Scriptura, but I have not found a convincing argument.__So with your response to Perry, I have found more muddy waters, but not an actual argument for Sola Scriptura--and most certainly not from Scripture itself.”

    I’ve made a positive case for sola Scriptura on other occasions, such as my reply to Philip Blosser:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/sola-ecclesia.html

    JNORM888 SAID:

    “They can't prove it. This is why they want to shift the burden on non-sola scripturans.”

    It would behoove you to cultivate a modicum of honesty. The fact that I didn’t try to prove it here doesn’t mean I never made a case for sola Scripture.

    Oh, and for your information, both sides have their own burden of proof to discharge. It’s not as if your little one-liners are making a case for your own position.

    JJ SAID:

    “So you have no infallible bible.”

    We have errant MSS of the Bible. These contain a lot of trivial and easily detectable scribal errors. On the basis of the textual witnesses, one then produces a critical edition of the Bible—an eclectic text. That’s perfectly adequate for what God requires of us.

    It’s not as if the Orthodox church has infallible copies of the Bible. Or infallible copies of the church fathers. Or infallible copies of conciliar decrees.

    “These ‘criteria’ can only reach as far back in time as the existing manuscripts. Nobody can say what readings existed in manuscripts that no longer exist.”

    i) As Hengel points out, the uniformity of the Gospels titles implies their originality. If they were late, editorial additions, we’d expect considerable variation.

    ii) However, you can be hyperskeptical if you like. But that’s a double-edged sword. It will slice away at Orthodox historical claims as well.

    “These criteria depend on the wide range of manuscript evidence that has only been able to be assembled in modern times. If the church lacked proper criteria till the 20th century, then you haven't got much right to be pointing the finger at criteria for traditions.”

    i) A critical edition of the NT is more accurate than the Byzantine text, but it doesn’t teach a different religion. You can be saved using either one. Likewise, a critical edition of the OT is better than the MT, but it doesn’t teach a different religion.

    ii) Complaining about textual criticism is just a diversionary tactic. That doesn’t absolve you from the need to sift oral tradition—especially when you yourself rely on oral tradition.

    “Even then these ‘criteria’ are inconclusive in many cases.”

    Do you prefer no criteria?

    “Obviously Orthodoxy has a firm criteria since they are comparatively unified in what they believe.”

    Obviously Mormonism has firm criteria since they are comparatively unified in what they believe.

    “If that's the best your hermeneutic has to offer, then you certainly could have no objection to me making a personal assessment as to what traditions are ‘probably’ apostolic, based on age and widespread belief in the early church.”

    How is antiquity an evidence of apostolicity? Simon Magus was a contemporary of the Apostles. So were Hymenaeus and Philetus.

    “Widespread belief”? You mean—like Arianism? Gnosticism? Monophysitism?

    ReplyDelete
  31. A couple of quick points to add on. Since Jason, Gene, and Steve have done a great job thus far, I'm only going to point out a few fallacies from our detractors.

    1. Suppose that Sola Scriptura is false. How would that prove that the authoritative tradition is found in the Orthodox position instead of the Catholic, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, and/or Mormon position? It doesn't. Therefore, all those who would argue for extra-Biblical authoritative Tradition....have a burden of proof to meet! So the "shifting burden of proof" claim is fallacious.

    2. An authority doesn't have to claim to be the only authority in order for it to be the only authority. It doesn't even have to make an authority claim at all. Its authority doesn't derrive from the claim of authority, but rather from the fact that we are held responsible to obey that authority. My Dad never had to say, "I am an authority figure over you, therefore you must clean your room." No, he commanded and I obeyed or suffered the consequences. The authority was demonstrated, not claimed. Therefore, the argument that "The Bible never says Sola Scriptura" is fallacious even were the premise that the Bible never says Sola Scriptura actually true.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "And no, no-one ever proved wrong, nor can it be proven wrong, (because it's true and it's scriptural and it's biblical and it's written black on white) that both Christ, as well as Paul made a clear use of Jewish unwritten (or unbiblical) traditions"

    You can repeat it at the top of your lungs all you want, but Steve already dealt with those spooftexts when he responded to Jay Dyer's arguments from tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Suppose that Sola Scriptura is false. How would that prove that the authoritative tradition is found in the Orthodox position instead of the Catholic, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, and/or Mormon position?

    Uhm, ... how do You prove that Your Scriptures are correct, while the others are not. (Qur'an, Vedas)

    You originally said "the twelve" were present. You really have no way of verifying this, since the only ones mentioned are Peter & Paul.

    The Bible says that The Apostles gathered at Jerusalem (naming also illustrious examples). I'm excpecting that they were all present there without exception, save for those with good excuses (like the dead James You keep bringing up: it seems that only death could stop him from partaking). :-) In any case, the impoprtance of the 12, 70, and elders becomes pretty apparent.

    Steve already dealt with those spooftexts when he responded to Jay Dyer's arguments from tradition

    I can't understand how someone can "deal" with truth and prove it otherwise. Tell me what he said that made such a huge impression on You (and mande You think that grass is red, and not green). :-?

    If Jesus said: "Matthew 23:1  ¶Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2  Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat", what exactly can a man say to make one think that Jesus never said or meant it? :-|

    P.S.: I'm also glad that You guys believe in the 70 Apostles: TurretinFan does not (and it really pi$$ed me off).

    ReplyDelete
  34. St. & Sinner,

    And another thing: what You call "spoof texts" we call inspired verses. The last time I checked, the Gospels and Epistles (whether of Paul or of Jude) were considered canonical and part of Holy Writ. (Not sure exactly what verses or entire books Your bible's missing...).

    2 Timothy 3:8  Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

    Jude 1:9  Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

    Jude 1:14  And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15  ¶To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Given that framework, I’d say there is no uniform “judge.” Sometimes a bishop is right. Sometimes a council is right. Sometimes a layman is right. What makes them right or wrong is their correspondence, or lack thereof, to the teaching of Scripture."

    Well that just IS the Orthodox position.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Lvka asked:
    ---
    Uhm, ... how do You prove that Your Scriptures are correct, while the others are not. (Qur'an, Vedas)
    ---

    Hey, look! A cop-out question! "My position just got pwned. Gotta make it look not so bad. Um, lemme see? Oh yeah! Let's question that which both sides agree on as if it's relevant to the discussion!"

    ReplyDelete
  37. energeticprocession said:
    "Given that framework, I’d say there is no uniform “judge.” Sometimes a bishop is right. Sometimes a council is right. Sometimes a layman is right. What makes them right or wrong is their correspondence, or lack thereof, to the teaching of Scripture."

    Well that just IS the Orthodox position.

    ***************************************

    In other words, the Orthodox are crypto-Protestants.

    That's a very promising development. Now we just need to encourage this trend in the direction of the 5 Reformation soli and the 5 points of Calvinism!

    ReplyDelete
  38. lvka,

    If you want to know how badly you are spooftexting those God-breathed texts in order to "prove" your position, then look up Steve's interaction with Jay Dyer on those texts. I couldn't find them on Triablogue, but they're probably in the comment section of Josh Brisby's blog.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Citing Steve, Energetic P. wrote:
    "What makes them right or wrong is their correspondence, or lack thereof, to the teaching of Scripture."
    "Well that just IS the Orthodox position."
    ***And Scripture was always already an inscription of the teachings of the Church--both Old and New Testament Church. Without this as a foundation, a Christo-telic reading is a non-starter. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit Who is always pointing to Christ Who is always revealing the Father.
    To be in line with Scripture, you will be in line with the Church. To be in line with the Church, you will be line with Scripture. I imagine that one of the ramifications of this is that one can have two or more "correct" readings of any given passage of Scripture--or Scripture that seemingly contradicts itself (the entry into Jerusalem on one or two donkeys; how many days before the Transfiguration, for example) turns out not to be a contradiction of fact but a teasing out of spiritual import of the divergent details.

    ReplyDelete
  40. By George, you've almost got it! A few more hours and you'll be well on your way to understanding the mystic truth that the Templars tried to bring forth from the heart of (metaphysical) Jerusalem: there are no real divisions in denominations! Rather, there is simply a manner of doctrine which exists solely such that we can tease out spiritual import from the divergent details, which exist only in the mind of the Casbah and never in the mind of the Rock.

    Tell me if thou wishest to ascend unto Adin or Beklah. Simply write me a blank check (God will supply the correct value), and wisdom shall be imparted by seeking the hand that waves while ignoring the shell that moves. Think not of logic; the mystic smoke bids ye "Why solely sola for your sole soul? Nay, thou coulds't obey yon mixture of vaporous substance and air, such gaseous particles that canst be inhaled as a therapuetic agent, yea the very injurious exhalations formerly supposed to produced within the body (the spleen) which we now know to be nothing but vaporized grandiloquently blustering!"

    Behold the vision!!! The Casbah has been Rocked. Constantinople is now Istanbul, not Constantinople, and it's no one's business but the Turks.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Peter Rabbit,

    my point was that I'm not here to convince people of other, un-Christian beliefs of the truth of my own faith. (And the reason for You addresing that question unrelated to the subject elludes me).

    As You can easily see, I am yet to have hardly any luck in convincing Protestants (who are willy-nilly still Christians, and not pagans or Muslims) of such taken-for-granted truths as the parallel between Moses & the 70 elders and Christ and the 70 Apotles; or that the 70 are actually Apostles, and not non-Apostles; or that Matthew, Jude, Hebrews and Timothy are still part of the Bible, and that they actually contain the verses I've cited; etc.

    ---------------
    St. and Sinner,

    as usual, thanks for nothing. :-\

    ReplyDelete
  42. Lvka,

    I feel your pain, willy-nilly brother. If only you'd just agree with me, we'd have no disagreement at all!

    ReplyDelete
  43. lvka,

    As usual, you keep repeating all of your old arguments and ignored all of the T-bloggers past counter-arguments. Please stop wasting the time of our busy lives or come up with better arguments, answer our previous counter-arguments, or just run along...

    :-/

    :-(

    :-o

    :-<

    ReplyDelete
  44. SAINT AND SINNER SAID:
    lvka,

    If you want to know how badly you are spooftexting those God-breathed texts in order to "prove" your position, then look up Steve's interaction with Jay Dyer on those texts. I couldn't find them on Triablogue, but they're probably in the comment section of Josh Brisby's blog.

    ******************************

    You can find my replies to Dyer under the "Orthodoxy" label. Not all of them are mine, but that's a place to start. Click on "Orthodoxy"

    ReplyDelete
  45. dementophobist said...

    "I imagine that one of the ramifications of this is that one can have two or more 'correct' readings of any given passage of Scripture--or Scripture that seemingly contradicts itself (the entry into Jerusalem on one or two donkeys; how many days before the Transfiguration, for example) turns out not to be a contradiction of fact but a teasing out of spiritual import of the divergent details."

    You're tipping your hand with these frivolous, village atheistic attacks on the inerrancy of Scripture. Your problem is not with sola Scriptura, but with the inspiration of Scripture.

    Any good commentary with deal with these "contradictions." You're wasting my time. Go away.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Steve:
    I have either miscommunicated my point about the *seeming* contradictions or you have misread them. Since you're the really smart one here, the one who is far better read in reformed hermeneutics, patristics, monastic hermeneutics, etc., we'll go with the former option.

    I don't believe they're contradictions at all. Please forgive me if that's what i communicated. I try to love the Scriptures with all my heart, soul, and mind. I do believe the "factual" details do contradict one another on the basis of *factual details.* I'll employ the beloved either/or dialectic that seems so popular on this blog. Christ either came into Jerusalem on one donkey or two. The Transfiguration was either after 6 days or 8. But the seeming "contradiction" is only predicated upon the fact that "facticity" was the SOLE purpose for the Gospel narratives. The point of my post was that the Gospels, while no doubt being historical, were also very much pedagogical. The "contrary" details, if one wishes to put it this way, were there for pedagogical purposes. So Chrysostom, for example (and I blush to mention this since you already know it), understood Matthew's mention of the two donkeys as symbolic (as a teaching of the Church) of Christ's mission to both Jews and gentiles. The difference between 8 days and 6? Both Chrysostom and Basil say that the days symbolize the number of witnesses. So for Luke, the 8 days include the Holy Spirit and God the Father. There's a monastic tradition that refers to the 8 days as the eighth day--the day of the New Creation.

    Steve, I'm not sure how else to make this point clear: I really am not trying to bring hostility here. I've learned much from reading your blog (for about a year now). I enjoy the logical rigor put on display here. I may be the village idiot, but I'm not the atheistic village idiot--which, from your perspective, I imagine, indicts me even more; here's a man who has the Gospel and is still this stupid, ignorant, foolish, etc. So be it.
    If my film criticism tweaked you, I apologize. I really was just having fun. It's like Peter Pike here. He's incredibly condescending in his response to me (Casbah, etc.), but I know he's just having fun mocking me. I take no offense. I found his post quite amusing, if not downright funny.
    You need not respond to any more of my backwoods ruminations if they are a waste of your time. If you prefer I not post here, I shall just lurk. It's you blog, your call. Really, I mean no offense. Just let me know.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Steve: "We have errant MSS of the Bible. These contain a lot of trivial and easily detectable scribal errors."

    Yep. Also some non-trivial and hard to detect scribal errors.

    "On the basis of the textual witnesses, one then produces a critical edition of the Bible—an eclectic text. That’s perfectly adequate for what God requires of us."

    Does that mean a non-eclectic text is not adequate?

    So you just assume a-priori that the text you have is adequately transmitted? I guess then you'll have no objection if I assume that other apostolic teachings are adequately transmitted outside of scripture.

    "i) As Hengel points out, the uniformity of the Gospels titles implies their originality. If they were late, editorial additions, we’d expect considerable variation."

    I guess the editorialising must be "early" then.

    "However, you can be hyperskeptical if you like. But that’s a double-edged sword. It will slice away at Orthodox historical claims as well."

    Ahh, hyperskepticism, verses mere skepticism, verses credulity. An enormous sliding scale to deal with.

    "A critical edition of the NT is more accurate than the Byzantine text, but it doesn’t teach a different religion. You can be saved using either one."

    Oh ok, so as long its enough to be saved by, none of the rest matters, or indeed we can be sure of, because of textual problems. Better shut down this blog I think.

    "ii) Complaining about textual criticism is just a diversionary tactic. That doesn’t absolve you from the need to sift oral tradition—especially when you yourself rely on oral tradition."

    Ok, so I sift tradition, and you sift manuscripts. You should have nothing much to complain about then.

    "Do you prefer no criteria?"

    Since all the readings belong to the historic church, it matters more what they understood by them, than whether I luck out to draw the original one.

    "Obviously Mormonism has firm criteria since they are comparatively unified in what they believe."

    If Mormonism is unified in belief, which I would question, then yes they must have a firm criteria. Your point is?

    "How is antiquity an evidence of apostolicity?"

    So antiquity isn't evidence? I think you just blew away one of your best hopes for defending various books in your canon.

    "“Widespread belief”?"

    So widespread belief is no evidence either? I think you just blew away your other hope of defending books in your canon.

    ReplyDelete
  48. the uniformity of the Gospels' titles implies their originality

    But the uniformity of the Epistle of Barnabas' title, or the uniformity of the Shephard of Hermas' title (plus their from-very-early-on attestation) does NOT "imply" anything, ... does it now? :-\

    ReplyDelete
  49. LVKA said:

    "But the uniformity of the Epistle of Barnabas' title, or the uniformity of the Shephard of Hermas' title (plus their from-very-early-on attestation) does NOT 'imply' anything, ... does it now?"

    How do you know what Steve's view is of the authorship of The Shepherd Of Hermas? Maybe he's commented on the subject, but I don't remember ever seeing him do so.

    Steve didn't suggest, nor does the source he cited (Martin Hengel) suggest, that document titles are the only evidence we have to go by (or that titles and "from-very-early-on attestation" are the only factors) or that titles "don't imply anything" for the two documents you've mentioned. Rather, document titles are one line of evidence among others for documents in general, not just the gospels.

    But the gospel titles carry more weight than the titles of the two documents you're referring to because of other factors involved. We don't have manuscripts for the two documents you've cited that are comparably early, numerous, and varied.

    And when we take other factors into account (external attestation, the level of interest the early sources would have had in identifying the author, the availability of sources who could have disputed the authorship claim if it was false, writing style, etc.), we have more reason to distinguish between the gospels and the two documents you've cited.

    ReplyDelete
  50. JJ SAID:

    “Yep. Also some non-trivial and hard to detect scribal errors.”

    If they’re hard to detect, how do you know they even exist, much less their character as “non-trivial”?

    “Does that mean a non-eclectic text is not adequate?”

    Adequate in relation to what? Adequate to come to a saving knowledge of God? Yes. Adequate on, say, the Long Ending of Mark? No.

    “So you just assume a-priori that the text you have is adequately transmitted?”

    I see you don’t know what is meant by a “critical edition” of the Bible, or my references to textual criticism (a la Tov, Metzger).

    I wouldn’t assume a priori that a text is adequately transmitted only to reference the principles of textual criticism. Sorry that obvious point is too subtle for you. Too much ecclesiolatry softens the brain.

    “I guess then you'll have no objection if I assume that other apostolic teachings are adequately transmitted outside of scripture.”

    You’re welcome to put your credulity behind whatever pious legends you like. It’s your funeral. I’ll send the flowers.

    “I guess the editorialising must be ‘early’ then.”

    That wouldn’t account for the uniformity of the attributions.

    And if you want to be an irrational sceptic, why not be equally sceptical about writings attributed to Popes, church fathers, and ecumenical councils. Maybe that’s just so-much editorializing, ya know.

    “Ahh, hyperskepticism, verses mere skepticism, verses credulity. An enormous sliding scale to deal with.”

    And you’re sliding down into the abyss in your toboggan.

    “Oh ok, so as long its enough to be saved by, none of the rest matters, or indeed we can be sure of, because of textual problems. Better shut down this blog I think.”

    No, better that you not read a blog which requires you to reject simpleminded dichotomies. We wouldn’t want to strain your flabby brain cells with too much mental exertion.

    “Ok, so I sift tradition, and you sift manuscripts. You should have nothing much to complain about then.”

    You haven’t presented any criteria for sifting oral tradition.

    And you’re right—I have nothing to complain about. If you want to act like a fool, you’re the one who suffers the consequences, not me.

    “Since all the readings belong to the historic church, it matters more what they understood by them, than whether I luck out to draw the original one.”

    So it’s irrelevant to you whether Jesus ever said the words attributed to him. It might as well be a scribal interpolation, for all you care.

    “If Mormonism is unified in belief, which I would question, then yes they must have a firm criteria. Your point is?”

    The point should be self-explanatory. There’s no correlation between unified belief and true belief.

    “So antiquity isn't evidence? I think you just blew away one of your best hopes for defending various books in your canon.”

    How do you know that antiquity is my best hope for defending the canon? I’ve defended the canon in on several occasions. Antiquity wasn’t my primary evidence.

    And you’re deflecting attention away from your own problems. If you think antiquity is evidence of apostolicity, then you must regard Simony as apostolic dogma.

    “So widespread belief is no evidence either? I think you just blew away your other hope of defending books in your canon.”

    What makes you think “widespread belief” is my “other” hope of defending the canon. The Koran enjoys widespread belief. Is the Koran your Bible? Are you Muslim?

    As far as external attestation is concerned, what matters is not “widespread” belief, but whether a particular witness was in a good position, in time and place, to know who wrote what.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dementophobist said:
    ---
    I try to love the Scriptures with all my heart, soul, and mind.
    ---

    Isn't one of the claims that anti-Sola Scripturists make that it is those who hold to SS who commit Bible-olotry? :-P

    Dementophobist said:
    ---
    But the seeming "contradiction" is only predicated upon the fact that "facticity" was the SOLE purpose for the Gospel narratives. The point of my post was that the Gospels, while no doubt being historical, were also very much pedagogical. The "contrary" details, if one wishes to put it this way, were there for pedagogical purposes.
    ---

    Are you saying that God couldn't get His point across using reality, so He had to make stuff up instead? (Of course, God created everything, so whatever is real is something God made up anyway.... Oy vey, mi noggin'!)

    BTW, I like your "facticity." It reminds me of Colbert's "truthiness."

    Dementophobist said:
    ---
    So Chrysostom, for example (and I blush to mention this since you already know it), understood Matthew's mention of the two donkeys as symbolic (as a teaching of the Church) of Christ's mission to both Jews and gentiles.
    ---

    Or perhaps it had something to do with Zechariah 9:9. You know, the passage Matthew quotes. By the way, I'm not at all convinced that Matthew is referring to two different objects when he says "the donkey and the colt."

    A) How is it possible to ride two donkeys at the same time? B) How would a culture that was used to riding animals not see this as a problem if it was in fact what Matthew was stating? C) The Greek word "kai" which normally translates as "and" can also mean "even" depending on context. D) The passage Matthew quotes only refers to one animal: "Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." (The KJV is the only passage that translates this with any ambiguity as to the number of animals, and it's most likely an attempt to harmonize it with the way they translated Matthew.)

    So much for that "facticity" problem.

    You said:
    ---
    The difference between 8 days and 6? Both Chrysostom and Basil say that the days symbolize the number of witnesses. So for Luke, the 8 days include the Holy Spirit and God the Father.
    ---

    Or perhaps 6 was the age of the first donkey, and 8 was the age of the second donkey....

    The problem with the types of "interpretations" that many early fathers fell into is the fact that it's pure speculation that is only loosely related to the text in the first place. You can make the numbers fit anything if you try.

    On the other hand, it seems quite reasonable to me to say that Matthew and Mark were simply more precise in stating "After six days" while Luke gave the "about eight days later" (and six is about eight; if I said, "About eight days ago, this happened" and it turns out that what happened was really only six days ago, no one would accuse me of error). This is A) something that happens frequently in language already and B) doesn't require us to make up some other "facticity" in an ad hoc manner.

    You said:
    ---
    It's like Peter Pike here. He's incredibly condescending in his response to me (Casbah, etc.), but I know he's just having fun mocking me. I take no offense. I found his post quite amusing, if not downright funny.
    ---

    I'm glad you took no offense (I figured you were older than the two donkeys). But I wasn't "just having fun mocking" you with my post. It actually had little to do with mockery at all; rather it's demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, which is a teaching technique. Also, when else am I going to be able to spoof both "Rock the Casbah" and "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)" in the same comment?

    ReplyDelete