Orthotroll, noun. (In Byzantine folklore), a diminutive cave-dweller with a decibel level out of proportion to its cranial capacity.
Orthotrolling, v.i. The physiological act of voice-raising by an Orthotroll. Comparable to shouting and yelling—only louder. (See definition under Elephant.)
—Oxford English Dictionary
JIMMY SAID:
“The very breadth of Metzger's credentials betrays his lack of depth. Yes, his breadth of reading and study is amazing, but his study doesn't go beyond the general consensus of his contemporaries.”
Even if that were true, it wouldn’t falsify his scholarship. Notice that Jimmy hasn’t shown that any of the material I quoted from Metzger (on the history of the Apocrypha) was in error. So this is just a smokescreen on Jimmy’s part.
Metzger documents a diversity of opinion, both in time and space, regarding the Orthodox canon.
BTW, he documents some of the same diversity respecting the Catholic canon. I quoted that as well.
“Even his text criticism shows a kind of mechanicalness. The reading he accepts at John 10:29 is quite absurd and not accepted by anyone else, but he takes it because of a rather mechanical methodology.”
Three problems:
i) Jimmy’s first objection is that Metzger’s scholarship doesn’t buck the consensus of opinion. Now, however, he faults Metzger for adopting a reading which is “not accepted by anyone else.”
So, by Jimmy’s rubber yardstick, we should reject Metzger out of hand because he’s too mainstream—and we should also reject Metzger out of hand because he’s too idiosyncratic.
ii) Jimmy merely asserts that this reading is “absurd.” He offers no supporting argument.
iii) Jimmy doesn’t document the claim that Metzger’s reading is “not accepted by anyone else.”
“It indicates a high probability that it was close to the LXX as we know it, since all sources we have for the LXX, early or late, include many of the extra books.”
i) All our major sources for the LXX are late. It’s just a choice between late, later, and latest.
ii)”Including extra books” doesn’t get Jimmy where he needs to go since some of the extra books which the codices include are books excluded in the Orthodox canon.
iii) Moreover, some of the extra books are Christian literature (Barnabas, Hermas, 1-2 Clement), which were obviously not among the books that pre-Christian Jews translated from the Hebrew OT. So extant copies of the LXX don’t correspond to the original canon of the LXX. Indeed, the inclusion of Christian literature is evidence of a highly anachronistic or eclectic edition.
“But then, I don't have to bother about the exact relationship between the 1C LXX and the later LXX, because I don't have to assume a-priori that the Church inherited an intact canon, instead of a process of recognizing the canon. Just as well too, since the Jews didn't leave us a list of books.”
i) In that event you cannot claim that the LXX represents the authentic OT canon, whereas the “Christ-hating” rabbis suppressed certain OT books which were originally included in the OT canon to obscure the Messianic prophecies contained therein.
ii) You would also have to resign the claim that the LXX represents the OT of Jesus and the Apostles if you now identify the LXX of the Orthodox church with a more expansive, post-apostolic edition.
“But the inconsistency of sources for the alleged Palestinian canon indicate it is ‘fluid’ too. So if I can't point to the LXX, you can't point to any of your sources either. And there ends any scholarly discussion.”
i) This rejoinder would only work, if at all, assuming you now concede that you can’t appeal to the LXX to establish the true canon of the OT. Is that your actual position?
ii) You’re also equivocating. A proper analogy would operate at the same level, viz. different editions of the LXX (or different codices containing the LXX) are comparable to different editions (or codices) of the Vulgate.
iii) The general phenomenon that different sources disagree about something doesn’t put an end to all scholarly discussion. It just means that we need to sift the sources in time, place, motive, &c.
“You do realise that almost all of Philo's quotes are from the Pentatuch, right? If you want to take what Philo quotes as the canon, you're going to have a very much abridged list of books. Philo is hardly a primary source for anything unless you want to do major surgery to your bible.”
i) Philo’s quotes aren’t limited to the Pentateuch. So it’s striking that a Hellenistic Jew doesn’t *ever* quote from the Apocrypha as Scripture if his edition of the LXX contained the Apocrypha.
ii) We single out Philo in this specific case given his identity as a Hellenistic Jew who would be conversant with any distinctive additions to the canon in the LXX—if, indeed, they were part of the LXX canon at that time and place.
iii) I’d add that Philo is a witness to the general contours of the OT canon (in discussing the canon of the Therapeutae). Read Beckwith.
“Of course one person who quotes extensively from the extra books is Josephus.”
You’re equivocating. Does Josephus quote them as *Scripture*?
“To claim that the extra books aren't part of the 22 book canon when there is no contemporary evidence of this, is to assume what you want to prove.”
I’m not assuming anything. Unlike you, I cite my sources of information, where scholars *argue* for their viewpoint.
“You want some examples of 1st C Jews citing the extra books as scripture? Simeon Shetah from the 1st C cites Sirach as scripture.”
i) That’s not responsive to my question. I asked:
“Are you referring to Talmudic sources? That would be a secondary source for what 1C rabbis supposedly believed. By contrast, Philo is a primary source.”
i) Do you have primary source data on particular rabbi? There’s nothing necessarily wrong with citing secondary sources, but if it’s a choice between primary source like Philo on the state of the LXX during the 1C, and a later, secondary source, then Philo takes precedence, barring further considerations.
ii) BTW, I assume the rabbi you’re apparently referring to wasn’t “Simeon Shetah [sic.]," but Simeon ben Shetach, not “Shetah [sic.],” and he wasn’t a 1C rabbi. Rather, he lived a century or so before the time of Christ.
iii) Finally, he was a Pharisee, was he not? But you automatically discount the testimony of a Pharisee as heretical.
“It is also found in the Qumran fragments.”
But the Qumran community distinguishes between Scripture and its in-house literature. Cf. R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, 226.
“As well as at Masada. Later Amoraic rabbis also cite it as scripture.”
You need to be more specific about your sources.
“If you can extrapolate Philo's silence on the extra books, why can't I extrapolate this to the extra books?”
Because of the time differential, among other things.
“Origen wrote to Africanus that there were things in the Greek bible not found in the Hebrew and that the Church could not be expected to give them up. (this is found in Jerome's Commentary on Daniel). In his Epistle to Africanus 13 he said the Churches should use TObit and Judith even though the Jews he knows did not.”
So he was torn between his scholarship, on the one hand, and his deference to ecclesiastical custom, on the other hand. Ambivalent.
“Do you have an uninterpolated copy of the scriptures with no scribal errors? Nope, didn't think so. So ironically you have to ascribe inspiration to an interpolated text.”
Notice how this is unresponsive to what I actually said. I said:
“But, to judge by their reaction, Orthodox believers don’t care what Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles really said. They don’t care if they attribute inspiration to uninspired scribal errors or interpolations.”
You don’t even attempt to distinguish between the Urtext and scribal accretions. What is more, you’re prepared to affirm that a scribal interpolation like, say, the long ending of Mark, is inspired on the mere say-so of your traditions. If Orthodox tradition canonized the Frogs, by Aristophanes, you’d be fine with that.
That impious indifference to the word of God is not the least bit comparable to my own position. I attribute inspiration to the Urtext, and I attribute inspiration to a copy or critical edition insofar as it approximates the Urtext.
“How would you measure this 90%?”
You’re changing the subject, as usual. I don’t have to measure it. I’m posing a hypothetical. Healy, with your approval, dismisses the very idea that our editions of Scripture should approximate the Urtext as far as possible. So the question stands: how much deviation from the actual words of Christ, or Isaiah, or St. John, is acceptable to you?
If, in reporting a dominical speech, a MS got 9 out of 10 words wrong, would you care? If you and Healy don’t think that discrepancies between a copy and the actual words of Christ are relevant, then you apparently have no problem attributing to Christ the words of a scribe. Not merely in practice, but in principle. You just don’t care who really said it. Is that your position?
“SInce there are about 8000 verses in the NT, and between the Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort and Nestle-Aland texts there are more than 4000 differences, then on a verse by verse basis it would be 50% corrupt.”
Of course, that’s a stupid comparison. A 19C critical edition is not the standard by which we measure a 21C critical edition. And most differences are trivial.
But Healy’s stated position isn’t limited to trivial differences. He is repudiating the very attempt to approximate the Urtext.
“Anonymity is no obstruction to something being scripture and therefore inspired.”
Now you’re misquoting me. My clause contained a noun modified by two adjectives: “words of an *anonymous, uninspired scribe*.”
You’ve dropped the noun, as well as one adjective. Did I say that anonymity, per se, was an obstruction to inspiration? No.
Thanks for reminding my readers that an Orthodox believer can only defends his faith through dissimulation.
“If your faith is dependant on textual criticism, then your faith is built on an area of study where the best scholars can't agree.”
i) Like who? Bart Ehrman?
ii) Textual criticism is not an act of faith.
iii) I go by the evidence that God has chosen to preserve. That’s where faith comes in.
“Josephus? Ok I'll bite, where does Josephus say Esther is canonical?”
Consider his use of Esther in the Antiquities.
“Aquila left nothing more than a translation, right? But didn't you say that the content of the LXX can't indicate its canonicity? So how would the content of another translation indicate its canonicity? Hypocrisy!”
Are you dishonest or merely obtuse? Did I ever say we can’t use the LXX as a witness to the OT canon because it’s a translation? No.
Rather, I said we can’t use it to attest the OT canon because we have various lines of evidence indicating that extant copies of the LXX don’t correspond to the original canon of the LXX.
“And since all we have of Aquila is a few scraps of Kings and Psalms, what is your citation that he even included Esther?”
Try Beckwith (p277).
“Now what about all the other lists of 22 books that exclude Esther? Athanasius, Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae, Gregory of Nazianzus, Melito of Sardis, Jerome, Rufinus and Rab Judah? Who told you they are wrong? You ARE willing to go with what evidence you have, right?? Or are you just bluffing?”
Jason has already pointed out some of the errors in your litany. To mention a few more problems:
i) Why are you citing Greek Fathers (Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzus) on the exclusion of Esther from the canon? Does the Orthodox canon exclude Esther from the canon? No. You’re shooting yourself in the foot when you cite Greek Fathers who contradict Greek Orthodox tradition.
ii) I don’t simply quote sources. Rather, I sift sources.
Intelligent truth-seekers draw some elementary distinctions in evaluating sources that attest the OT canon.
In general, Jewish sources (e.g. Philo; Josephus) are better than Gentile sources.
Gentile sources in direct contact with Jewish sources (e.g. Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome) are better than Gentile sources which are ignorant of Jewish sources.
Christian churches or church fathers native to Palestine (e.g. Justin, Melito, Cyril of Jerusalem, Syria) are better positioned to speak to the issue than Christian churches or church fathers outside Palestine.
Some historical sources enjoy more prima facie value that others, based on chronological and/or geographical proximity. But it’s possible for this presumption to be overcome by other extenuating factors.
iii) In addition, as I’ve said on multiple occasions, external evidence is not the only form of canonical attestation. There is also the intertextuality of Scripture.
“Since Esther is dated to around 4 centuries BC, what evidence that is historically relevant are we going to find four or five centuries later anyway? What's the difference between half a millennium and a full millennium? Neither one attests to any further inside historical knowledge of the who, when or where of the book.”
i) If you want to respond that way, fine. You originally appealed to “further centuries” of ecclesiastical reflection. If you now admit that an interval of 400-500 years is too long for tradition to preserve a reliable memory of events, then, of course, you torpedo any appeal to ecclesiastical tradition, since that is far more attenuated.
ii) I’d add, however, that the very nature of textual transmission by the scroll is highly resistant to inserting a new book in-between a preexisting literary sequence—unlike the codex or loose-leaf form. That’s totally disruptive to the process of transmission. And the Jews used scrolls.
“If true, your certainty can only be less than that of the Orthodox church, since your basis is on a mere subset of Orthodoxy's 2000 year insight.”
i) 2000 years of “insight” is irrelevant to historical attestation.
ii) And you can’t appeal to Orthodox tradition if you’re going to dismiss Jewish tradition out of hand.
“You assume that 1C Jews are a monolithic block, which they certainly weren't.”
Care to quote me on that?
“The issue is not Jews being untrustworthy, the issue is that those outside the true people of God are untrustworthy in theological issues.”
What evidence do you have that the Jewish translators of the LXX belonged to the “true people of God”? Do you think that all Intertestamental Jews belonged to the “true people of God”?
“No you can't. I could just as much say his canon includes the extra books since he cites them so much.”
Once again, you’re equivocating and prevaricating. How does he cite them? As Scripture?
“Is your argument so convoluted and complex that you can't tell us? You make the statement, you back it up. Don't run scaredy cat back to some scholars.”
This anti-intellectual response to the work of reputable scholars betrays the desperation of your own position.
“Many of the same scholars who debunk the Alexandrian canon based on the silence of history also abandon the Palestinian canon as a settled canon based on the exact same silence.”
Only one thing missing from your assertion: names, titles, and pages.
“Since he almost exclusively quotes the Pentatuch, we wouldn't expect this.”
See above.
“Your care for Philo is selective since you don't care about everyone else who disagrees with you.”
i) It’s “selective” for the obvious reason that sources vary in their area of expertise. Philo would be an authority on the Alexandrian canon—if it existed in his day and age.
I’m also “selective” in going to a dentist rather than an automechanic to have an orthodontic checkup. And I’m just as selective about going to an automechanic rather than a dentist to have a vehicular checkup.
ii) Since “every one else” doesn’t disagree with me, your statement is an exercise in hyperbolic nullity.
“Recent scholarship since 1990 has sought to move scholarly perceptions forward by demonstrating that Josephus was not a Pharisee (Cf. Steve Mason, Todd Beall, and Ernst Gerlach).”
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is correct, then you can’t dismiss the testimony of Josephus on the grounds that he belonged to the “heretical” sect of the Pharisees.
JIMMY SAID:
“I don't need to disprove unsubstantiated repetition of protestant mythology about the canon.”
If you’re going to resort to a bigoted, knee-jerk dismissal of Protestant scholarship merely because it’s Protestant, then don’t bother getting into a debate with a Protestant like me (or Gene or Jason).
It’s obviously a waste of my time to respond to someone who is going to disregard everything I say merely because it comes from the lips of a Protestant.
“Mechanical application of consensus methodology IS idiosyncratic.”
That’s rank special pleading on your part.
“You want me to document a negative?”
Since you made a universal claim, then the onus is on you to cough up supporting evidence commensurate with your claim.
“Just look at every bible translation based on NA27, only one follows NA27 and that is Metzger's own NRSV.”
i) Even if that were true, it would contradict your claim that Metzger is a creature of consensus.
ii) Bible versions are produced by translation committees, not individuals.
“Not at all. We know from Church Father quotes what was in it.”
But you’ve said tha we can’t determine the scope of the canon by “quotes.” We need “lists.” So which church fathers “list” the books of the LXX? And what are the dates for the church fathers who do so?
“I never claimed that the LXX was a settled list. What I said was that the LXX always contained an expanded list relative to the protestant canon.”
Which doesn’t get you where you need to go if the “expanded list” is listing “extra books” which the Orthodox canon excludes.
“There is no ‘original canon of the LXX’. The content was fluid, but always larger than protestantism's list.”
i) So you deny the account of Aristeas, according to which there was an original LXX. That’s fine with me, but your denial undermines the claims of the Orthodox church.
ii) You continue to equivocate over “fluid content.” The fact that a codex may have “extra books” doesn’t suggest that its “extra books” were canonical books. So you can’t infer the canon from a codex. Yet a codex is your primary witness to the LXX.
“I never said anyone ‘suppressed’ certain books. That's certainly a possibility but since the list was fluid, it is unnecessary to claim that.”
Fine. Then we both agree with Jay Dyer’s argument for the priority of the LXX is fallacious.
“I don't have to state a position to point out the hypocrisy in your position.”
The fact that you’re so reluctant to state your own position betrays the fact that your own position is indefensible.
“An LXX list IS comparable to a list by an ancient personality.”
You don’t have an LXX list. What you have are different codices with different books. So that would be comparable to conflicting lists (by your own analogy).
[I said] The general phenomenon that different sources disagree about something doesn’t put an end to all scholarly discussion. It just means that we need to sift the sources in time, place, motive, &c.
“Well great, so you have no complaints then about the alleged differences in Orthodox canon lists.”
i) Of course, that doesn’t follow from what I said. It means, as I said before, that we would have to sift the sources…
ii) Moreover, my criteria are not the same as yours. You make authoritarian claims about your church. But if your church can’t even agree on the books of the Bible, then that undercuts your authoritarian ecclesiology. Jason has made this point repeatedly.
“You assume what you wish to prove by drawing a line between your canon and the apocrypha in Philo, when there are many books in your canon he also doesn't quote.”
i) I’ve already explained this to you more than once. As the leading Hellenistic scholar of his generation, Philo would be an expert witness to existence and content of the Alexandrian canon if there were one.
ii) I never said that external attestation was my sole criterion for the canon. Indeed, I’ve frequently said that it’s not.
a) For example, intertextuality is another criterion.
b) Moreover, Wisdom is a pious fraud. That’s sufficient to disqualify it from inclusion in the canon.
You constantly oversimplify my position (and oversimplify Jason’s) because you can’t deal with our actual position.
“Philo DOES quote the apocrypha. Philo quotes from Ben Sira and Wisdom of Solomon. (Julio C_Trebolle Barrera) The Canon Debate, Lee Martin McDonald).”
Sure about that? Winston, in the standard commentary on Wisdom, thinks that Wisdom is literarily dependent on Philo, not vice versa (p59). Of course, you can take issue with Winston’s dating scheme, but this illustrates one of the complex variables in finding early attestation for the Apocrypha. Depending on when we date various books of the Apocrypha, it may actually post-date the witness to its allegedly prior existence.
“Well if they're scripture then they're quoted as scripture, right?”
“If they’re scripture…” Care to redeem the conditional?
“Do you mean does he say ‘Scripture says XYZ’, my question is how many of your sources for the alleged Jewish canon and who quotes what, limit those quotes to ‘scripture says’?”
That’s not the only way to establish the boundaries. If, say, Josephus cites a cut-off date (the Intertestamental period) for OT Scripture, then that would automatically disqualify the Apocrypha as “scripture.”
“Name dropping scholars is not an argument. What are you here as the marketing department for protestant scholars? Annunciate an argument yourself.”
i) Since I’m not the angel Gabriel, the Annunciation isn’t my department.
ii) You need to acquaint yourself with the other side of the argument. That’s one reason I cite scholars like Beckwith. It’s incumbent on you to actually know an argument before you refute it. You use ignorance as a shield.
“How is name dropping ‘Philo’ more of a primary source than my mentioning Simeon Shetah?”
Because we have Philo in his own words.
“I stand corrected, he was 1C BC.”
This happens quite often with you. Jason has had to correct you on several occasions. You don’t care about the facts because you begin with your fideistic dogma.
“Remembering of course that you claim to go with the most ancient witness, when are you adding Sirach to your canon?”
i) Once again, that’s a deliberate caricature of my position. As I carefully explained, there’s a presumption that an earlier witness is more reliable than a later witness, but that’s a prima facie assumption which can be overcome by countervailing evidence.
ii) You are also glossing over the distinction between primary and secondary sources. If, say, our information about Shetach comes from the Talmud, then that’s a late, secondary witness to an earlier witness allegedly said.
Gene, Jason, and I have to waste a lot of time untangling your combination of ignorance and misrepresentation.
“Remember, I don't have to give a rip what someone in antiquity said when I have a living church.”
Wonderful. In that case we can safely discount every church father and every ecumenical council.
“Oh, so we're back to name dropping scholars because you can't put together your own argument?”
You continue to raise these anti-intellectual objections.
“I can do that too. Lee M McDonald, The Formation of the Christian biblical canon P 72 says that contrary to what some scholars have proposed, Qumran had an expanded canon, and there is no reason to suppose it was the shortened canon of later Judaism.”
Regarding McDonald:
i) Part of good scholarship is to sift scholars. McDonald is not in the same scholarly league as Beckwith or Bruce or Metzger or Bauckham. He doesn’t demonstrate the same command of the primary sources. Instead, he spends a lot of time commenting on other scholars.
ii) His book is a popular introduction to the canon. It doesn’t go into the same detailed analysis as Beckwith on the OT or Metzger on the NT.
iii) He’s a liberal. And his liberal views on pseudonymity inevitably color his outlook on the canon. For, if you draw no distinction between Scripture and pseudepigrapha, then you do, indeed, end up with an open canon. But I reject his liberal presuppositions.
[You said] “As well as at Masada. Later Amoraic rabbis also cite it as scripture.”
[I said] You need to be more specific about your sources.
[You said] “See McDonald, ibid.”
Well, McDonald dates the Amoraim to the 3C AD and later. So they are obviously in a less advantageous position to tell us the scope of the 1C canon used by Jesus and the Apostles than Philo or Josephus.
“Does your bible in front of you have scribal accretions? If so why don't you ‘distinuish’ them out of there?”
A stupid objection, since that’s the whole point of textual criticism—a discipline I affirm.
“As opposed to... what? Yes, the say so of our traditions which beats your own personal theories and flights of fancy. You've given us no reason to believe that the long ending of Mark, if it isn't by Mark (which is disputed), would be no less inspired than other anonymous books like Hebrews.”
A fallacious comparison since Mark is not anonymous.
“Remembering of course that Urtext doesn't mean the autograph, it simply means the earliest text that you can find.”
No, that’s not what the Urtext means. “Urtext is the putative original form of the text of the Bible as defined on p177,” E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.
“What difference does it make since I don't have Christ's original words, but rather the copies which you describe as interpolated? I'll take what's available thankyou.”
i) It makes a difference if you bother to distinguish between an accurate copy and an inaccurate copy.
ii) And you’re not taking “what’s available,” for more than one textual tradition is available.
“Apparently. Like 2000 years of Christians, and 4000 years of God's people.”
i) The Orthodox church doesn’t have a monopoly on either the Jews or the Christians.
ii) The OT was very concerned to distinguish between the Word of God and, say, the word of a false prophet. So, yes, we should be concerned with making an accurate attribution when we ascribe words to Yahweh or Jesus the prophets and apostles.
The Massoretes also went to great lengths to avoid scribal error. So concern for the Urtext is not a modern novelty.
“1) There's no 21C critical edition.”
You keep making ignorant, easily refutable statements:
http://www.amazon.com/Nestle-Aland-Novum-Testamentum-Graece-Nestle/dp/1598561723/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205424478&sr=1-2
“2) If it changes every century, that hardly helps your case.”
Why not? If a later edition is more accurate than an earlier edition.
“3) The Nestle 1-25 text is a 20th century text based on WH and Tischendorf. __4) The span in time between NA-1 and NA26 is closer to 50 years than hundreds of years.”
Now you’re back to special pleading. You were the one who established a time-frame using 19C critics like Tischendorf and WH at one end of the chronological spectrum.
And while we’re at it, let’s back up to your original statement:
“How would you measure this 90%? SInce there are about 8000 verses in the NT, and between the Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort and Nestle-Aland texts there are more than 4000 differences, then on a verse by verse basis it would be 50% corrupt. And the difficulties of the NT are small compared to the OT.”
Let’s compare that with a statement from another source.
***QUOTE***
The mistake is even greater when the interpretation of the Bible depends upon the translations instead of the original Hebrew, and especially the New Testament Greek text. The fact that there are variations of the translations of the Bible indicates most clearly the need for a common edition of the Greek New Testament on which other translations will depend.
A comparison of the text of this edition with that of the edition of the official New Testament text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople shows approximately 2,000 variations. But most of them do not change the meaning of the New Testament. All the variations between these two texts are found in the apparatus of the critical edition of 1966, issued by the five Bible Societies. The text of the Patriarchate was prepared by a commission in 1904, which also has approximately 2,000 variations compared to the Common Edition, Textus Receptus, prepared much earlier. Despite these efforts there is still no one common edition of the New Testament Greek accepted by all. It must be recognized, though, that the edition issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople depended mainly upon the passages and verses designated by the Church to be read during the celebrations on Sundays and feast days, For this reason these passages were kept intact with fewer changes. It is evident that greater efforts involving all the Christian churches must be made to arrive at one common edition in the original language recognized by all Christians. This effort will be a step in unifying the Christian Church as Christ meant it to be One Body, Undivided.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7068.asp
***END-QUOTE**
So, by your own yardstick, the Greek Orthodox church is using a corrupt edition of the Bible.
“Of course, you can document the source of all these words, who wrote them and their inspired status, right?”
You continue to raise obtuse objections. I didn’t object to anonymous, uninspired scribes. Rather, I object to treating a scribal interpolation as if it’s the inspired word of an apostle or prophet of God.
Your blind hostility towards the discipline of textual criticism is even at odds with modern Orthodoxy:
***QUOTE***
A critical examination of the text of the original Hebrew and Greek languages of the Bible is indispensable, for through the centuries many words were added or omitted. This was especially so before the printing press, and there was only manual copying on rough lamb skin and papyrus. The scholarly study of the original languages is valuable aid in correcting the mistakes and reestablishing intact the original texts from which the translations should be made. The prime purpose of such a valuable work is not only to make the Bible free from any and all changes and mistakes, but even more to make the original context and meaning available for translations in many languages for reading by all Christians.
The Greek text of the New Testament used for the King James Version was that of Beza in 1589. Beza had two Greek manuscripts of great value of the fifth and sixth centuries, but he did not use them, because they were different from the Greek text made by Erasmus (1516-1535). The manuscripts used by Erasmus were from the tenth century on, and he made little use of them. The discovery of many ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, especially after 1931, provided the committee of scholars with important new sources, including the information which recent discoveries have provided for a better understanding of the vocabulary and idioms of the Greek New Testament language.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7068.asp
***END-QUOTE***
“I thought you weren't happy with what is preserved and have to go and manufacture an Urtext? Make up your mind, is the text the scribes preserved ok or not?”
Yet another stupid objection. Jimmy never makes an attempt to offer a rational response. His only reaction is grab onto anything within reach, however illogical or erroneous, to cast at the Protestant canon.
He’s like a scared little dog that turns nippy and yippy when it feels afraid. We see his little white teeth and hear his pipsqueak yelp—like a mouse in a lion suit.
At the risk of stating the obvious, some scribes are more accurate than others. Some MSS are more accurate than others. The purpose of textual criticism is to sift through the MSS by applying various criteria.
[He said] “Josephus? Ok I'll bite, where does Josephus say Esther is canonical?”
[I said] Consider his use of Esther in the Antiquities.
[He said] “LOL, that's not an argument. Why don't YOU consider his use of the deuteros in the Antiquities?”
i) Notice that Jimmy is changing the subject. He asked me a question. I gave him an answer which was responsive to his question. And his reaction is to change the subject from Josephus’ use of Esther to his “use of the deuteros.”
ii) He also tosses this out as another question for me to answer. But if Jimmy thinks that Josephus’ “use of the deuteros” is a counterexample, then he needs to cite the counterexamples.
iii) And we already know from Josephus’ cut-off date for the OT canon what he would think of the “deuteros.”
“The issue is not some phantom ‘original canon’, the issue is the canon(s) of the LXX in use in the 1st C. So you remain hypocritical.”
Yet another one of Jimmy’s inexhaustible supply of inane objections. The Orthodox argument for the Orthodox canon is that Jesus and the Apostles used the LXX canon—which corresponds to the Orthodox canon of the OT.
If, however, we have multiple lines of evidence to the contrary, then that undermines the Orthodox argument on its own grounds. It’s hardly “hypocritical” of me to present an internal critique of the Orthodox argument.
“Bzzt. Beckwith is not a 1st century character.”
Bzzt. Most of the ante-Nicene, Nicene, and post-Nicene fathers aren’t 1C characters either.
No, a 20C scholar is not a 1c character. Rather, he cites primary sources from the past and subjects them to historical analysis.
“ If you can't state an argument for yourself, clearly it is bogus.”
This is Jimmy’s lame excuse for not bothering to bone up on the other side of the argument.
“Because I don't have to conform to some arbitrary cut off date for recognizing the canon like you do.”
So you don’t have a Bible. You’re canon is wide-open.
“Again, you haven't proven that the Church didn't inherit a canon recognizing process rather than an intact canon.”
Actually, I have, but in any event, that’s beside the point. The Orthodox argument for the Alexandrian canon is that this was the canon used by Jesus and the Apostles.
If you’re going to shift gears to “a canon-recognizing process rather than in intact canon,” then that’s a backdoor admission that you lost the original argument.
“Thus there is no reason to suppose a Jewish source is better than a Christian source. “
Of course there is. The OT was written by Jews and to Jews. So, yes, they’re the first folks we’d logical consult regarding the confines of the OT canon.
“And in fact there are plenty of reasons not to, namely their lack of discernment in rejecting Christ.”
There’s no reason to think the Jews who translated the LXX were any more or less devout or discerning than their 1C counterparts.
This is your dilemma. You have to rely on the Jews for the LXX, but they suddenly become unreliable on the OT canon.
“Their unknown status in terms of their representation of their contemporaries”
That’s a contentious claim which you need to justify.
“And the lack of the leading of the Holy Spirit.”
i) To judge by my experience with Orthodox epologists, as well as the modernism on display at places like St. Vladimir’s, I wouldn’t say that the spiritual discernment of Orthodox believers is anything to brag about.
ii) And it’s not as if the Orthodox hold the patent on spiritual discernment. Evangelicals could make the same appeal.
“Again, assuming what you have to prove in that we're given no reason to assume that Jews in Palestine are more likely to have a correct canon than those elsewhere.”
The Bible was written in Hebrew, not Greek. The Second Temple was, among other things, the official library and repository for the OT scrolls. That was the yardstick for Diaspora Jewry.
There’s a reason why a Diaspora Jew like Paul studied in Jerusalem. Even as a Christian, he cited his Jewish credentials as a student of Palestinian Judaism.
“No, I'm saying that what is preserved after 500 years is no more or less than is preserved after 1000 years. If you want to say something was lost after 500, it's up to you to prove it.”
Something can’t be lost unless it existed in the first place. So you’d have to prove that the LXX, in its present form, existed for the first 500 years, give or take.
“No, the scroll system is far less resistant to adding books, because all you do is throw another cylinder in the box. The codex being bound as one resists adding books.”
Only if you assume a one-to-one correspondence—one book per scroll. Out of ignorance, you’re overlooking the practice of combining books on a single scroll, so that a single scroll might contain a *set* of books (e.g. the Pentateuch, Hagiographa, Minor Prophets)—depending on the size of the book, the size of the scroll, and the size of the print. That practice both presupposes and reinforces a literary sequence by grouping particular books together.
While you can add or subtract a book from a loose-leaf codex, you can’t do that with an anthological scroll. You’d have to rewrite the whole scroll to insert a new book into the standardize sequence.
“I don't appeal to all traditions, only those of the true people of God.”
You have made no attempt to identify or verify the “true people of God.”
[I said] What evidence do you have that the Jewish translators of the LXX belonged to the “true people of God”? Do you think that all Intertestamental Jews belonged to the “true people of God”?
“I don't have to know or care. I have a true people of God TODAY.”
Aside from begging the question (why should we believe that you belong to the true people of God?), you’re cutting your own throat. If you’re going to dismiss Jewish testimony to the OT canon—because they don’t belong to the “true people of God”—then you can’t rely on a Jewish translation of the OT (=the LXX) if that work was done by individuals who did not belong to the “true people of God.”
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that you yourself, further down the line, belong to the “true people of God today,” yet if there’s a break in the continuum (of the true people of God), between “now” and then, you can’t rely a translation (the LXX) which falls on the wrong side of the break. The waters aren’t any purer downstream than upstream.
“Why don't you just set this up as an Amazon associates book store, and stop wasting everybody's time?”
You’re a first-class twit. No one invited you to come here. You’re here at our indulgence. This is our blog, not yours.
I’m wasting *your* time? No, you’re wasting *my* time.
“No, I reject him because he belongs to an unknown heretical sect.”
If it’s an “unknown” sect, then how would you be in any position to know it’s heretical?
Once again, you’re not even attempting to be rational—assuming that you ever had that capacity in the first place.
I’ll skip over your tendentious and equivocal summary since I’ve already refuted your latest claims.
You’re like the characters of Lucy and Pigpen in Peanuts. When we answer you on your own grounds, you pull the football away at the last minute. And you kick up a dust cloud wherever you go.
You’ve outstayed your welcome. Time for you to go bye-ku.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
'Something' - Arminian Style
Here's a remake of a classic
***************
Something in the way He moves
Attracts me like no other wuver
Something in the way He woos me
I choose not to leave Him now
I chose to believe, and how!*
Somewhere in His smile He (kinda) knows
That I don't need no other wuver
Something in His style that woos me
I choose not to leave Him now
I chose to believe, and how!*
You're asking me will my love grow
I have free will so I don't know, I don't know
I stick around for now it may show
I have free will so I don't know, I don't know
Something in the way He (kinda) knows
And all I have to do is think of Him
Something in the outpour of grace woos me
I choose not to leave Him now
I chose to believe, and how!*
I chose Him because His universal grace
I hope I will see his face
The guy next to me had the same grace
But he won't see His face
Why did I chose but not him
I don't know, I don't know
Was I better in some way than him
Probably so, probably so
I choose not to leave Him now
I chose to believe, and how!*
*(Patting myself on the back for making such a wise choice, as opposed to my idiotic friend who did not.)
[song edited due to fan's (Pilgrimsarbour) request]
***************
Something in the way He moves
Attracts me like no other wuver
Something in the way He woos me
I choose not to leave Him now
I chose to believe, and how!*
Somewhere in His smile He (kinda) knows
That I don't need no other wuver
Something in His style that woos me
I choose not to leave Him now
I chose to believe, and how!*
You're asking me will my love grow
I have free will so I don't know, I don't know
I stick around for now it may show
I have free will so I don't know, I don't know
Something in the way He (kinda) knows
And all I have to do is think of Him
Something in the outpour of grace woos me
I choose not to leave Him now
I chose to believe, and how!*
I chose Him because His universal grace
I hope I will see his face
The guy next to me had the same grace
But he won't see His face
Why did I chose but not him
I don't know, I don't know
Was I better in some way than him
Probably so, probably so
I choose not to leave Him now
I chose to believe, and how!*
*(Patting myself on the back for making such a wise choice, as opposed to my idiotic friend who did not.)
[song edited due to fan's (Pilgrimsarbour) request]
Orthodox Dishonesty, Chapter LXX...
I wandered across a statement from an Orthodox E-pologist tonight criticizing David T. King for allegedly dishonestly quoting the Fathers of the Ancient Church in Volume 1 of Holy Scripture, The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. Specifically, he said that he misquoted Gregory of Nyssa.
1. David King is specifically dealing with the claims of Roman Catholics with respect to the existence of extrabiblical traditions about Jesus. This E-pologist can't seem to follow King's argument, or he's too dishonest to represent it correctly. It's often hard to tell with him.
2. Specifically, he quotes John O'Brien:
Here is the full quote from Gregory of Nyssa:
1. Is Gregory saying we should look to extrabiblical traditions that are embodied, for example, in the liturgy of the Church? No.
2. Is he appealing to extrabiblical traditions about the miracles of Jesus (for example, His childhood) that we might find embodied in the life of the Church, for example, in icons? No.
Therefore, Gregory is saying exactly what Brother David says Gregory wrote. Who is mishandling Gregory?
3. Does the Protestant rule of faith say that all knowledge about God is absolutely confined to Scripture, to special revelation alone? No! For we have a doctrine of common grace. We do believe in Natural Theology. We just place limits on its utility, for we place it in subjection to Scripture, which is alone infallible. Of course, this Orthodox E-pologist, chronic liar that he has proven himself to be in the past, regularly misrepresents our rule of faith.
Gregory even says later:
4. Indeed, on what basis might Gregory make such an appeal? I wonder if our inept Orthodox E-pologist recognizes this text from the Bible:
In Chapter 3, King tries to assault an argument that John 20:30 is an argument for tradition.This particular E-pologist isn't well known for his own honesty, regularly violating his ban on this blog by posting pseudonymously, so I decided to check his "research."
John 20:30 "Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book".
King argues that the Fathers interpreted this passage to mean that one should not speculate above and beyond what scripture says. However when we bother to look up the references, this is not what we find at all.
His first quote is from Gregory of Nyssa. In the quote Gregory states that scripture is silent on a particular theological question. But look what Gregory says a couple of sentences later:
"But it may be that the Evangelist means this in his profound wisdom: that we are to learn the majesty of the Son of God not by the miracles alone which He did in the flesh. For these are little compared with the greatness of His other work. “But look thou up to Heaven! Behold its glories! Transfer your thought to the wide compass of the earth, and the watery depths!"
In other words, Gregory is actually advising against looking to scripture for answers, and instead to look to the glory of God in creation. In other words, he states the exact opposite of what King would have him say.
1. David King is specifically dealing with the claims of Roman Catholics with respect to the existence of extrabiblical traditions about Jesus. This E-pologist can't seem to follow King's argument, or he's too dishonest to represent it correctly. It's often hard to tell with him.
2. Specifically, he quotes John O'Brien:
There are certain truths which Christ and the Apostles taught which are not recorded in the Scriptures but which are embodied in the life, practice, and ministry of the Church, in her unwritten and written traditions, which supplement the biblical record.3. Then, he cites Gregory as a Patristic witness against that very sort of thing, with respect to the way Roman Catholics construe John 21:25.
Here is the full quote from Gregory of Nyssa:
Wherefore Holy Scripture omits all idle inquiry into substance as superfluous and unnecessary. And methinks it was for this that John, the Son of Thunder, who with the loud voice of the doctrines contained in his Gospel rose above that of the preaching which heralded them, said at the close of his Gospel, "There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." He certainly does not mean by these the miracles of healing, for of these the narrative leaves none unrecorded, even though it does not mention the names of all who were healed. For when he tells us that the dead were raised, that the blind received their sight, that the deaf heard, that the lame walked, and that He healed all manner of sickness and all manner of disease, he does not in this leave any miracle unrecorded, but embraces each and all in these general terms. But it may be that the Evangelist means this in his profound wisdom: that we are to learn the majesty of the Son of God not by the miracles alone which He did in the flesh. For these are little compared with the greatness of His other work. "But look thou up to Heaven! Behold its glories! Transfer your thought to the wide compass of the earth, and the watery depths! Embrace with your mind the whole world, and when you have come to the knowledge of supramundane nature, learn that these are the true works of Him Who sojourned for you in the flesh," which (says he), "if each were written"—and the essence, manner, origin, and extent of each given—the world itself could not contain the fulness of Christ's teaching about the world itself. For since God has made all things in wisdom, and to His wisdom there is no limit (for "His understanding," says the Scripture, "is infinite"), the world, that is bounded by limits of its own, cannot contain within itself the account of infinite wisdom. If, then, the whole world is too little to contain the teaching of the works of God, how many worlds could contain an account of the Lord of them all? For perhaps it will not be denied even by the tongue of the blasphemer that the Maker of all things, which have been created by the mere fiat of His will, is infinitely greater than all. If, then, the whole creation cannot contain what might be said respecting itself (for so, according to our explanation, the great Evangelist testifies), how should human shallowness contain all that might be said of the Lord of Creation? Let those grand talkers inform us what man is, in comparison with the universe, what geometrical point is so without magnitude, which of the atoms of Epicurus is capable of such infinitesimal reduction in the vain fancy of those who make such problems the object of their study, which of them falls so little short of non-existence, as human shallowness, when compared with the universe. As says also great David, with a true insight into human weakness, "Mine age is as nothing unto You," not saying that it is absolutely nothing, but signifying, by this comparison to the non-existent, that what is so exceedingly brief is next to nothing at all.There is little if anything here with which we, the Reformed, would disagree.
1. Is Gregory saying we should look to extrabiblical traditions that are embodied, for example, in the liturgy of the Church? No.
2. Is he appealing to extrabiblical traditions about the miracles of Jesus (for example, His childhood) that we might find embodied in the life of the Church, for example, in icons? No.
Therefore, Gregory is saying exactly what Brother David says Gregory wrote. Who is mishandling Gregory?
3. Does the Protestant rule of faith say that all knowledge about God is absolutely confined to Scripture, to special revelation alone? No! For we have a doctrine of common grace. We do believe in Natural Theology. We just place limits on its utility, for we place it in subjection to Scripture, which is alone infallible. Of course, this Orthodox E-pologist, chronic liar that he has proven himself to be in the past, regularly misrepresents our rule of faith.
Gregory even says later:
I have said, then (for I make my master's words my own), that reason supplies us with but a dim and imperfect comprehension of the Divine nature; nevertheless, the knowledge that we gather from the term which piety allows us to apply to it is sufficient for our limited capacity.
4. Indeed, on what basis might Gregory make such an appeal? I wonder if our inept Orthodox E-pologist recognizes this text from the Bible:
1O LORD, our Lord,I take it reading comprehension is not this E-pologist's forte.
How majestic is Your name in all the earth,
Who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens!
2From the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have established strength
Because of Your adversaries,
To make the enemy and the revengeful cease.
3When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
4What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
5Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
6You make him to rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
7All sheep and oxen,
And also the beasts of the field,
8The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea,
Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
9O LORD, our Lord,
How majestic is Your name in all the earth!
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Children Oppress Them and Women Rule Over Them
I've been asked to comment on the (mis)use of Isaiah 3:12 by some complementarians.
First, let me clear, I am a biblical complementarian, not an egalitarian. That said, my position is heavily caveated. I don't affirm women as elders in a local church, but a seminary is not a local church. Ergo, yes, it's fine with me if women teach male students in seminary. I am also on a personal mission to get more women engaged in E-pologetics. We need you!
I have heard this passage used in the way Wade describes, and it's got nothing to do with the *fact* of female rulers/misrulers. Rather it speaks to the *reasons* they are ruling.
Children
Women
The men are absent? Why would that be? To what would that be a reference?
1. Well, when children oppress, that speaks to an inversion of the created order, not in the home, but society as a whole. Children, under no circumstances are to have authority as rulers. "Children" were oppressing. Which children?
Answer: Child rulers. I would also point out that the definition of a "child ruler" in the Ancient Near East,as in the OT law on stoning rebellious children, is quite flexible. Not all references to "children" mean "little boys and girls," what we would call elementary or preschool age children or slightly older.
The law on stoning a rebellious child, for example,deals with any child, specifically adult children, who disgrace the family. A child who oppresses as a ruler, would be any ruler of young age that is oppressive.
2. And women rule over them. How? Through those child rulers. There women acting as coregents and counselors and coopting the power of the throne in the highest tradition of the evil houses of the North, following after that whorish Queen Jezebel who certainly set the bar high, did she not,for the very name "Jezebel" has been ruined for every generation since.
Women in the court and their influence is spoken of in somewhat positive fashion in some places. Jerusha, mother of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah was daughter of Zadok, high priest,and a godly woman.
On the other hand, we have the story of Ahaziah, 22 years of age when enthroned, who walked in the ways of Ahab. His mothers name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri. She engaged in a systematic campaign to overthrow the House of David. Jehoram was 32 when he took the throne, and reigned 8 years. He walked in the way of the kings of Israel, just as the house of Ahab did, for Ahab's daughter was his wife. Then we have Shimeath and Jehozabad referenced in 2 Chronicles 24. Look it up and see why they are there. As with the Assyrians God raised up to judge Israel (and whom God held accountable for their sins in so doing), so God uses Zabad and Jehozabad to judge Joash.
And that's the point of the passage here. The reference to "women ruling over them" has nothing to do
one way or the other with women in leadership roles and the intrinsic role of women. Rather, Isaiah is making a reference to the history of young rulers who have been influenced by mothers and wives who have followed not after God but the gods of the pagans. We see this in 2 Chronicles, where the Chronicler makes constant reference from the time of Ahab to the insinuation of women from Ahab's family into the House of David. The same pattern appears over and over. It's a repeat of the Sin at Meribah in Numbers - the intermarriage with the Moabite women. It's a repeat of Solomon's women problems - for he let them worship their idols. It's a repeat of Jezebel's role in the life of Ahab. It is, in short, an ongoing problem in the life at court in Jerusalem. This gets repeated even in the NT and is a signal of apostasy. Remember the role women played in the life of the royal court under Herod?
The problem isn't related women for the sake of women - it's what sort of women are involved - women like Jezebel. and Athaliah, not women like Jechiliah, Jerusha and Jehoshabeath. Look carefully at the books of the Kings and Chronicles. Very often, the mention is quick (blink and you'll miss it), but an evil, immature king is connected to a woman who is depicted in the background. When good king is listed,and you see a connection to a female, I would say the presumption is that the author is making a tacit comment that this woman was godly and had positive influence.
If you're one of those who thinks women involved in high level government positions, to take a more mundane example, is a sign of a wicked nation, this text doesn't support you. It's not about the gender of who is sitting on the throne, it's about the power behind the throne, namely the wives, mothers, and counselors of those men. Men ruled, but the women in their lives corrupted them. It tells us (a) to watch who we marry and to whom we listen, and (b) gives us a good reason to "leave your father and mother and cleave to your wife, if the problem is your wicked mother or grandmother, and it speaks to the tremendous influence (and responsibility) women have over the men in their lives, both sons and husbands. Men, listen to the godly women in your lives and take their wise counsel to heart! Men, stand up to the ungodly women in your lives and and rebuke them!
First, let me clear, I am a biblical complementarian, not an egalitarian. That said, my position is heavily caveated. I don't affirm women as elders in a local church, but a seminary is not a local church. Ergo, yes, it's fine with me if women teach male students in seminary. I am also on a personal mission to get more women engaged in E-pologetics. We need you!
I have heard this passage used in the way Wade describes, and it's got nothing to do with the *fact* of female rulers/misrulers. Rather it speaks to the *reasons* they are ruling.
Children
Women
The men are absent? Why would that be? To what would that be a reference?
1. Well, when children oppress, that speaks to an inversion of the created order, not in the home, but society as a whole. Children, under no circumstances are to have authority as rulers. "Children" were oppressing. Which children?
Answer: Child rulers. I would also point out that the definition of a "child ruler" in the Ancient Near East,as in the OT law on stoning rebellious children, is quite flexible. Not all references to "children" mean "little boys and girls," what we would call elementary or preschool age children or slightly older.
The law on stoning a rebellious child, for example,deals with any child, specifically adult children, who disgrace the family. A child who oppresses as a ruler, would be any ruler of young age that is oppressive.
2. And women rule over them. How? Through those child rulers. There women acting as coregents and counselors and coopting the power of the throne in the highest tradition of the evil houses of the North, following after that whorish Queen Jezebel who certainly set the bar high, did she not,for the very name "Jezebel" has been ruined for every generation since.
Women in the court and their influence is spoken of in somewhat positive fashion in some places. Jerusha, mother of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah was daughter of Zadok, high priest,and a godly woman.
On the other hand, we have the story of Ahaziah, 22 years of age when enthroned, who walked in the ways of Ahab. His mothers name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri. She engaged in a systematic campaign to overthrow the House of David. Jehoram was 32 when he took the throne, and reigned 8 years. He walked in the way of the kings of Israel, just as the house of Ahab did, for Ahab's daughter was his wife. Then we have Shimeath and Jehozabad referenced in 2 Chronicles 24. Look it up and see why they are there. As with the Assyrians God raised up to judge Israel (and whom God held accountable for their sins in so doing), so God uses Zabad and Jehozabad to judge Joash.
And that's the point of the passage here. The reference to "women ruling over them" has nothing to do
one way or the other with women in leadership roles and the intrinsic role of women. Rather, Isaiah is making a reference to the history of young rulers who have been influenced by mothers and wives who have followed not after God but the gods of the pagans. We see this in 2 Chronicles, where the Chronicler makes constant reference from the time of Ahab to the insinuation of women from Ahab's family into the House of David. The same pattern appears over and over. It's a repeat of the Sin at Meribah in Numbers - the intermarriage with the Moabite women. It's a repeat of Solomon's women problems - for he let them worship their idols. It's a repeat of Jezebel's role in the life of Ahab. It is, in short, an ongoing problem in the life at court in Jerusalem. This gets repeated even in the NT and is a signal of apostasy. Remember the role women played in the life of the royal court under Herod?
The problem isn't related women for the sake of women - it's what sort of women are involved - women like Jezebel. and Athaliah, not women like Jechiliah, Jerusha and Jehoshabeath. Look carefully at the books of the Kings and Chronicles. Very often, the mention is quick (blink and you'll miss it), but an evil, immature king is connected to a woman who is depicted in the background. When good king is listed,and you see a connection to a female, I would say the presumption is that the author is making a tacit comment that this woman was godly and had positive influence.
If you're one of those who thinks women involved in high level government positions, to take a more mundane example, is a sign of a wicked nation, this text doesn't support you. It's not about the gender of who is sitting on the throne, it's about the power behind the throne, namely the wives, mothers, and counselors of those men. Men ruled, but the women in their lives corrupted them. It tells us (a) to watch who we marry and to whom we listen, and (b) gives us a good reason to "leave your father and mother and cleave to your wife, if the problem is your wicked mother or grandmother, and it speaks to the tremendous influence (and responsibility) women have over the men in their lives, both sons and husbands. Men, listen to the godly women in your lives and take their wise counsel to heart! Men, stand up to the ungodly women in your lives and and rebuke them!
PSA For Arminians
At Triablogue, we seek first and foremost to be understanding and compassionate towards all. We go so far as to ignore truth completely in order to make people feel warm and fuzzy about themselves. After all, what’s the point of going to heaven if you can’t enjoy it before you die? Yet many Arminians still think we are mean. This is rather unfortunate, as our intention is to be nice to everyone. Indeed, I wholly endeavor to become all things to all people (even girly men) if that is what it takes to keep people from saying I’m a big meanie. So this post is for our Arminian  May the table set before them become a snare; may it become retribution and a trap. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever. Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them. May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents. For they persecute those you wound and talk about the pain of those you hurt. Charge them with crime upon crime; do not let them share in your salvation. May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous. Psalm 69:22-28 May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes. May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor. May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children. May his descendants be cut off, their names blotted out from the next generation. May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD; may the sin of his mother never be blotted out. May their sins always remain before the LORD, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. Psalm 109:8-15  Then the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies! Isaiah 37:36 (this passage especially ought to be ignored if you believe the angel of the Lord is a Christophany) "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” Matthew 23:13-15 Thankfully, if any mean Calvinists bring up any of those verses, you can always respond with: “But that’s how God feels about unbelievers.” This usually is enough to deflect any problems. Unfortunately, most Calvinists are not dumb enough to stop there. Instead, they will also quote the following passages you will do well to ignore:  When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Galatians 2:11 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Galatians 3:1  I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. Revelation 3:15-16 So we see that Paul attacked Peter in public, he called the church of Galatians foolish and bewitched, and JESUS had the audacity to criticize the church at Laodicea. This is obvious proof that Calvinists are part of the NIV conspiracy. Remember, God loves you. God is:  Not:  |
Corrupt Politics
By now, I'm sure most of you, if not all have read about the merry adventures of Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York, aka George Fox, aka Client Number 9. I had the pleasure of hearing Alan "See No Evil" Dershowitz tell the nation that Spitzer should not resign.
Wow, a Governor who, as Attorney General, pledged to fight organized crime and prostitution should not step down? Why? Because, says the Dershowitless, sexual dalliances have been a (non)issue since Jefferson.
Hmmm, how, pray tell, does Jefferson's sexual history have anything to do with Spitzer's case? Jefferson didn't run on an abolitionist platform. Jefferson didn't pledge to fight adultery, prostitution, etc.
In reality, we have here yet another corrupt politician who thinks they should continue to sit in office after having been exposed.
And while we're at it, let's not forget the others. Larry Craig comes to mind. Remember Mark Foley?
Off late, this phenomenon isn't confined to the Federal Government or NY. Here are a few examples from my own home state, NC:
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles Chairman Tatum
Speaker of the House Jim Black is adjusting to prison
Jim "I Can Be Bought" Morgan
Agriculture Commissioner Meg " I Admit I Did It But No Apology For It " Scott Phipps
Rep. Mike Decker has at least comported himself with some dignity.
Ironically, he was in cahoots with Speaker Black. Cue "Black and Decker" jokes.
My personal favorite of late, Rep. Wright will soon be the first person ejected from the General Assembly in over a century. He doesn't think that his peers there should in judgment over him. The money quote,
1. Well, here's one darn tootin' good reason this nation is in the internal turmoil it's in. We are finding we can't trust our leaders. As Glen Beck says, Spitzer is just the latest example of the reason so many of us feel disenfranchised right now.
2. I'd point out that many if not all of these folks are career politicians, and these issues transcend party lines. Think about that.
In NC, we're supposed to have a "citizen legislature." What a joke. In theory, that means our representatives aren't professional politicians. In practice, it means:
a. They keep their pay scale low enough to make it unattractive for challengers to run for office.
b. These "citizens" include professionals like optometrists and insurance agents. We've seen Jim Black take money from his peers to pass legislation to line his and their pockets. I've lobbied the insurance committees in the House and Senate here in the past few years, and I can attest that we have many insurance agents crafting insurance regulations. Sure, it's good to have folks who know the industry on the committee, but do we really want insurance agents to craft the laws that regulate themselves. Savor the irony.
c. Redistricting here (as in other states) every decade is left to the whim of whichever party controls the Assembly. Consequently, they gerrymander their districts. I attended the last hearings, and I personally heard men arguing over the possibility of having to run against their buddies with whom they've been serving in the Assembly for, in some cases, upwards of 20 years.
d. Apropos (c), one need only look at some of the "races" this year to see how hopeless some of them are for those who are not incumbents. Look at Cong. District 5. I don't yet know which of these I'll vote for, but who of them can really stand up to Virginia Foxx, who rose to her office through, that's right, serving in the NC General Assembly? District 5 has been specifically crafted to give the Republicans a majority and thereby keep them in office there. This was done to offset District 12, which was crafted to give the Dems a majority. Mel Watt is a well known career politician. I'm nearly 40,and this man has held political office as long as I can remember. In other words, the Gen. Assembly crafted these districts on the basis of party politics, nothing more. The result is that the people of the opposing parties in either district are largely shut out while these two individuals get virtually unchallenged access to their seats in Congress. NC needs a truly independent Redistricting Commission.
Consequently, when I vote this year, my strategy is simple: Vote out every incumbent in NC whom I can possibly vote out of office. Keep out every career politician I can. I will apply this regardless of party affiliation. If this means I vote somebody in office who is pro-abortion or gay rights, then I'll do it, and I will rely on the Gospel to address those issues, because keeping these people in office is, in my opinion, a mistake here because so many of these folks were complicit with these scandals and leads to systemic distrust and disconnect with the public. I would rather have a person with whom I disagree over public policy in office but whom I believe I can trust overall than a person I can't trust at all in office but with whom I might agree on policy. As Joe Sinsheimer said:
This means that, to cite some examples, if he wins the nomination, I'll likely vote for Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory. He's the only candidate not tied up with the state government as yet, and, having been mayor of Charlotte, I think he has the experience to be Governor, vs. other outsiders like Bill Graham. I know I'll not vote for Dan Besse for Lt. Governor, as his run for office is proof that he's in the running for career politician given his 7 years in his seat on his city council, as does his curriculum vitae. Pat Smathers is the other outsider, and having been mayor of Canton, I think he's the better candidate. All the others have run for office and failed in the past and/or, in my opinion lack experience. I'll vote against Elizabeth Dole. Why? She's a career politician and she's been unresponsive to me personally in the past. The only incumbent within my voting rights that I would keep in office at present is Richard Burr, solely because he has been remarkably responsive to me personally in recent history, having had direct contact with his office, and because I've seen him display an independent streak I've not seen in Mrs. Dole or my Representative, Virginia Foxx.
Finally, think on this. It's true that God can raise up a Cyrus to protect His people. It's also true that God can and has in times past given people rulers after their corrupt hearts. King Saul comes to mind. God gave them David, a man after His heart. Saul was the king of their own choosing, the king after their own heart. He used Saul to show them they needed a king after His heart. Let's pray that He will open the eyes of the people of this nation this election year and not give them kings after their corrupt hearts. The level and extent of these sorts of stories seems to me to be a signal of what is in our collective heart as a nation. May God have mercy on us.
Wow, a Governor who, as Attorney General, pledged to fight organized crime and prostitution should not step down? Why? Because, says the Dershowitless, sexual dalliances have been a (non)issue since Jefferson.
Hmmm, how, pray tell, does Jefferson's sexual history have anything to do with Spitzer's case? Jefferson didn't run on an abolitionist platform. Jefferson didn't pledge to fight adultery, prostitution, etc.
In reality, we have here yet another corrupt politician who thinks they should continue to sit in office after having been exposed.
And while we're at it, let's not forget the others. Larry Craig comes to mind. Remember Mark Foley?
Off late, this phenomenon isn't confined to the Federal Government or NY. Here are a few examples from my own home state, NC:
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles Chairman Tatum
Speaker of the House Jim Black is adjusting to prison
Jim "I Can Be Bought" Morgan
Agriculture Commissioner Meg " I Admit I Did It But No Apology For It " Scott Phipps
Rep. Mike Decker has at least comported himself with some dignity.
Ironically, he was in cahoots with Speaker Black. Cue "Black and Decker" jokes.
My personal favorite of late, Rep. Wright will soon be the first person ejected from the General Assembly in over a century. He doesn't think that his peers there should in judgment over him. The money quote,
“I’m highly disappointed in my colleagues,” Wright told reporters. “This rush to judgment from Day One is politically motivated, clearly. I am an elected official. I am their leader. How dare my colleagues sit in judgment and pass judgment on me.”Why mention this?
1. Well, here's one darn tootin' good reason this nation is in the internal turmoil it's in. We are finding we can't trust our leaders. As Glen Beck says, Spitzer is just the latest example of the reason so many of us feel disenfranchised right now.
2. I'd point out that many if not all of these folks are career politicians, and these issues transcend party lines. Think about that.
In NC, we're supposed to have a "citizen legislature." What a joke. In theory, that means our representatives aren't professional politicians. In practice, it means:
a. They keep their pay scale low enough to make it unattractive for challengers to run for office.
b. These "citizens" include professionals like optometrists and insurance agents. We've seen Jim Black take money from his peers to pass legislation to line his and their pockets. I've lobbied the insurance committees in the House and Senate here in the past few years, and I can attest that we have many insurance agents crafting insurance regulations. Sure, it's good to have folks who know the industry on the committee, but do we really want insurance agents to craft the laws that regulate themselves. Savor the irony.
c. Redistricting here (as in other states) every decade is left to the whim of whichever party controls the Assembly. Consequently, they gerrymander their districts. I attended the last hearings, and I personally heard men arguing over the possibility of having to run against their buddies with whom they've been serving in the Assembly for, in some cases, upwards of 20 years.
d. Apropos (c), one need only look at some of the "races" this year to see how hopeless some of them are for those who are not incumbents. Look at Cong. District 5. I don't yet know which of these I'll vote for, but who of them can really stand up to Virginia Foxx, who rose to her office through, that's right, serving in the NC General Assembly? District 5 has been specifically crafted to give the Republicans a majority and thereby keep them in office there. This was done to offset District 12, which was crafted to give the Dems a majority. Mel Watt is a well known career politician. I'm nearly 40,and this man has held political office as long as I can remember. In other words, the Gen. Assembly crafted these districts on the basis of party politics, nothing more. The result is that the people of the opposing parties in either district are largely shut out while these two individuals get virtually unchallenged access to their seats in Congress. NC needs a truly independent Redistricting Commission.
Consequently, when I vote this year, my strategy is simple: Vote out every incumbent in NC whom I can possibly vote out of office. Keep out every career politician I can. I will apply this regardless of party affiliation. If this means I vote somebody in office who is pro-abortion or gay rights, then I'll do it, and I will rely on the Gospel to address those issues, because keeping these people in office is, in my opinion, a mistake here because so many of these folks were complicit with these scandals and leads to systemic distrust and disconnect with the public. I would rather have a person with whom I disagree over public policy in office but whom I believe I can trust overall than a person I can't trust at all in office but with whom I might agree on policy. As Joe Sinsheimer said:
Jim Black and Thomas Wright were able to operate in the shadows because so many members allowed them to do so.I can only speak for NC. We, in NC, must send a strong signal to the professional politicians running the House and Senate of this state. We must tell them that we will no longer tolerate this behavior. The best way to do that is to "Vote the Bums Out!" To quote Mark Twain,
for all domestic troubles the ballot-box is our only weaponThe problems here are deep and systemic. I've seen it first hand. I've had friends of mine visit the Assembly with me and, after a meeting with a representative or senator and then attending a committee meeting only to have him go back on his word, say "He lied to our face." I've heard and watched them gerrymander the voting districts. I've heard the backroom gossip. What the courts rooted out in the recent past are just a smattering. The people of this state need to draw a line in the sand, and they need to do it now while they have the opportunity and motive, given the expected rise in voter turnout this year. We have an opportunity here. We must seize it while we can - and we need to make it clear that we'll do it again if they don't straighten up and fly right.
This means that, to cite some examples, if he wins the nomination, I'll likely vote for Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory. He's the only candidate not tied up with the state government as yet, and, having been mayor of Charlotte, I think he has the experience to be Governor, vs. other outsiders like Bill Graham. I know I'll not vote for Dan Besse for Lt. Governor, as his run for office is proof that he's in the running for career politician given his 7 years in his seat on his city council, as does his curriculum vitae. Pat Smathers is the other outsider, and having been mayor of Canton, I think he's the better candidate. All the others have run for office and failed in the past and/or, in my opinion lack experience. I'll vote against Elizabeth Dole. Why? She's a career politician and she's been unresponsive to me personally in the past. The only incumbent within my voting rights that I would keep in office at present is Richard Burr, solely because he has been remarkably responsive to me personally in recent history, having had direct contact with his office, and because I've seen him display an independent streak I've not seen in Mrs. Dole or my Representative, Virginia Foxx.
Finally, think on this. It's true that God can raise up a Cyrus to protect His people. It's also true that God can and has in times past given people rulers after their corrupt hearts. King Saul comes to mind. God gave them David, a man after His heart. Saul was the king of their own choosing, the king after their own heart. He used Saul to show them they needed a king after His heart. Let's pray that He will open the eyes of the people of this nation this election year and not give them kings after their corrupt hearts. The level and extent of these sorts of stories seems to me to be a signal of what is in our collective heart as a nation. May God have mercy on us.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
More On John 6
This is a follow up to here.
Phil wrote:
My reply:
Phil wrote:
I explained this. If we take the text you quoted as a couplet, which is what is required for a parallel statement, we have synonymous parallelism if we stipulate to your reading of the text.
Synonymous parallelism:
Synonymous Parallelism: In synonymous parallelism, the second line of the pair repeats the idea of the first line without making any significant addition or subtraction.
You say:
Well, it's not antithetical parallelism. It's not emblematic parallelism. So we have two choices.
1. Synonymous. If synonymous, then 45 simply restates 44.
2. Synthetic. If synthetic, then the second line completes, advances, or develops the thought of the first line by supplying additional ideas.
Synthetic parallelism is a form of synonymous parallelism. Go back and read the definitions.
I've explained the rest already. You say you don't understand. I'm afraid you need to be more specific. Hearing and learning are "equivalent" with drawing insofar as drawing and "taught of God" are the divine actions that result in persons hearing and learning. Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes. How do we know this? Because we're told this by Jesus to explain the unbelief of those in the audience.
Once more:
Jesus says,
1. Nobody can come to me unless my Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.
2. It is written in the prophets, "And they shall be taught of God.
a. Who is "they?" They are those who are drawn. They are the "everyone" of his next statement.
3. Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me.
Who comes? Everyone who hears and learns from the Father?
Who are they? They are the ones drawn.
Who are they? They are those taught by God.
What you and Godismyjudge below do is posit disjunctions between one o more of the following:
Those drawn and those who come. - eg. Everyone is drawn, but only some come.
Those who are taught and those who learn. Everyone is taught (drawn) but not all of them learn.
Those who hear and those who learn. Everyone is taught,and they hear, but not all of them learn, or everyone is taught (drawn), some hear,and those who learn are a subset of those who hear.
Consequently, this would mean:
Only some who are drawn come.
Some who are taught hear and learn.
Some who hear learn, but not all.
This successfully upends the text as an explanation of the reason some believe and others do not,when Jesus predicates hearing and learning on teaching/drawing. Some people believe and others do not? Why? Does Jesus say, "Because some people hear and do not learn?" Does Jesus say, "Because everybody is taught but only some hear and learn and thus come?" Does Jesus say, "Because everybody is drawn but only some come?" Those would, at best, only restate the problem and not answer the problem of unbelief.
According to John 6, rather, in Jesus words, the reason some believe and others don't is because some are drawn by God and others are not; some are taught by God and others are not, and all who hear and learn come.
I've never claimed that 45 explains drawing "exhaustively." Rather, I am discussing it's usage in this particular text. To quote James White:
Also, Thibodeux is the one who tried to link this text to Hosea 11. Some commentators do this. Granting that connection, what does this say about John 6? I've been over this too.Here's Hosea 11:1-4
I'm applying standard definitions you can find in any text on hermeneutics, particular OT Exegesis. You can also find it in more popular works like How To Read the Bible For All It's Worth.
Genesis is not John, nor is Genesis Isaiah. John has a particular affinity for Isaiah's style and content. That too is a fairly standard view.
I'd say you're reading quite a bit into "image" here. In Genesis, the image of God refers to "dominion." See Turretinfan's archives for more on that text. I do agree with much of what you say about the image of God in man, but I don't think Genesis addresses those issues. Rather, I would say that the Trinitarian model is more properly inferred from the relationship between Christ and the Church which in turn is predicated on the relation between Father and Son, per Paul. The Father stands over Christ and loves Christ. Christ stands over the Church and loves the Church and so on. The husband/wife relationship is is representative of the relationship between Christ and the Church, and from there we can draw Trinitarian inferences.
If it does so highlight a specific quality, it would be its effectual nature, namely everyone so drawn comes.
People not coming who are drawn is excluded because 44/45 is an explanation of why some people believe and not others. Christ says this because they begin grumbling among themselves. Again, the next account magnifies this even more when the Lord says specifically that there are those there who do not believe (alluding to Judas). Why do they not believe? Because it has not been so granted.
The unspoken problem you seem to have is "free will." Where is the supporting argument?
Michael Williams wrote:
Your lack of alterative exegesis is impressive. It's impervious within the frame of your focus.
The remaining 31,000 plus verses of the Bible do not discuss this topic. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how they refute Reformed soteriology.
Because not all texts are epexegetical to others.
That said, we use Scripture to interpret Scripture. The Reformed believe in the analogy of faith. By way of contrast, where do we find Libertarian Free Will taught in the Scriptures? As it goes, so goes Arminian soteriology.
2. Calvinism has no problem with this. It's a statement of identity. God is the Savior of all men in a general sense. (a) There is only one God who can justify a sinner. (b) God has made provisions for common grace.
God is the Savior of all men, e.g. the only Savior any man can ever know and the general patron of all people (common grace). He is not the Savior of all men when it comes to eternal salvation, because not all men are saved. He is the Savior of all men extensively with respect to common graces. God restrains evil in the world, gives us light, feeds us, and a host of other activities. Unless the disputant is a universalist, this text cannot refer to all men without exception.
If we take these references to mean everybody without exception in 1 Timothy, then what of the following texts? Using the Arminian yardstick:
• 1 Tim. 2:8 "everywhere" means "the North Pole" or "in hell" or “the moon.”
• 1 Tim. 4:4 "everything God created is good" include Satan; note that verse 3 limits verse 4 to food and marriage.
• 1 Tim. 6:17 "everything for our enjoyment" includes sin
Godismyjudge said:
1. Then in that case, teaching is restricted to the external, general call.
2. On those grounds, which are Arminian considerations, Arminianism is thereby falsified, for everyone who hears and learns comes. So, you'll have to posit a disjunction between those who hear and those who learn in this text. Instead, you've run to John 5, but John 5 is not citing Isaiah 54:13, nor is it the same pericope, with the same audience, context, etc. More importantly, this portion of the text is explaining why some people believe and not others. Just once, I would like to find an Arminian who can actually read through John 6 without running back to John 5 or forward to John 12.
3. Nobody who comes is turned away.
Yes, God teaches. What is the result of the teaching? They hear and learn. Everyone who hears and learns comes. Those who come are not turned away. It's the Arminian who says that God's teaching is universal, by way of UPG. So, why do some believe and not others?
This text is given as an explanation of why some believe and not others.
Some people were grumbling. Jesus said, "Nobody is able to come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."
These people were being taught by God. The text from Isaiah was viewed by some as Messianic. "He will be a righteous king over them taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days. " This in turn evokes other texts, including Jer.33, Joel 2, Micah 4, Zeph 3, Mal. 1. All the citizens of the Kingdom are "Those who are taught by God."
So the referent for "everyone who hears and learns" refers to citizens of the Kingdom, the regenerate, not to some sort of generalized teaching ministry like the tutoring of the Law or the general preaching of the word, in this case by God Incarnate in a Jewish synagogue no less. The irony here is that these same people in Jesus audience believed they were citizens of the Kingdom already, but they were not, for, if they were,they would have believed. We see this made quite clear later on in John when Jesus tells off the Pharisees saying that if they were truly Abraham's children they would believe in Him.
Nobody can come unless the Father draws them.
They are taught of God, because God must teach them for them to come.
Everyone who is taught comes, because everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes.
Nobody who comes is turned away.
Everybody who comes is raised on the last day.
If this drawing is universal and equal to all, friend, then, pray tell, why do some believe and not others? If we confine the "teaching" to the Law, then we're confining teaching to what we might call the outward preaching of the Word. Everyone who hears this comes according to v. 45, given those considerations. But the text has, by this point, already stated that all who come are not turned away, and those drawn all raised up. You're left with universalism on Arminian considerations alone, but you're no universalist.
So, let's plug some of these considerations of yours into the text.
Let's stipulate that this teaching is the Law.
2. You'd have to posit a corresponding disjunction between those who are drawn and those who are raised in v. 44. Where is this to be found in the text? Who is the "him" of vs. 44?
Nobody can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
This him is the one who is drawn.
And (conjunction). I will raise him up on the last day.
That is, Jesus will raise up the person who is drawn. So, these must be the same person. The text simply doesn't support such a disjunction.
Epexegetical statement begins:
You are positing LFW to make this disjunction. You're reading would be either:
or
1. Why does one person choose to hear and/or learn and not another? Remember, this text is intended to explain this phenomenon. Your reading doesn't make sense as an explanation of the reasons for unbelief. It only moves the question back a step.
2. Where can we find LFW taught in the Bible?
Phil wrote:
"This proves that everyone drawn comes. How? Everyone who hears and learns from the Father and "be taught of God" explains what drawing is."
Could you please give a more detailed explanation of why you think that these two are exactly equivalent (if that's what you are saying)? It doesn't seem to me like Hebrew parallelism requires this...not that I'm an expert or anything. But take, for example, genesis 1.27:
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
The parallelism here gives gender an "explanation" as to what is meant by being created in the image of God, but surely it is not an exhaustive account of how humanity bears the image of God. In the same way, hearing from the Father and being taught of God may not be exhaustive of "drawing."
My reply:
This discourse is given in Midrashic form (cf.for example, Blomberg's material on John).
Parallelism is common in midrashic teaching. The only question is "what sort to we have?"
We have 4 options:
Synonymous Parallelism: In synonymous parallelism, the second line of the pair repeats the idea of the first line without making any significant addition or subtraction. Your example from Genesis seems to fit this pattern.
Antithetic Parallelism: In antithetic parallelism—the most common form in Proverbs—the second line is set in contrast to the idea of the first line, and usually by means of the adversative conjunction “but.” This often consists of a restatement of the idea of the first line by asserting its opposite (i.e., both lines state the same idea but in antithetical ways):
*
10:1: “A wise son makes a father glad, but a foolish son is a grief to his mother.”
c. Emblematic Parallelism: In emblematic parallelism, one line is figurative and the other is literal, and together they form a simile with the word “like” or “as” introducing one of the lines (usually the figurative one):
*
10:26: “Like vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is the lazy one to those who send him.”
d. Synthetic Parallelism: Synthetic parallelism is a form of synonymous parallelism in which the second line completes, advances, or develops the thought of the first line by supplying additional ideas. If the second line provides no further clarification of the first, the parallelism should be classified as synonymous, but if it does bring forth clarification or expansion, it is synthetic.
*
15:3: “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, watching the evil and the good.”
*
16:4: “The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.”
The interpreter is to determine the contribution of that second line, as well as the point of the two statements taken together as a whole. Because synthetic parallelism usually takes the form of a wisdom saying (see 2b in part 1), the interpreter will need to determine the unstated exhortation implied by the proverb by wrestling with the question: How am I to live in light of this truth?
So what do we have here:
No man can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him.
This is given to explain the unbelief of the audience.
Jesus follows: It is written in the prophets, "And they shall be taught of God." This refers to Isaiah 54: "All your sons will be taught of the LORD;
And the well-being of your sons will be great.
Then Jesus says, "Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me."
The text continues on with a parallel incident among the disciples themselves, which is a microcosm of the events in the synagogue:
59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"
61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?
62"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64"But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
65And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
So, we have,stylistically, a number of things going on:
Statements in Midrashic form, each building one upon the other. Commentaries frequently refer to John's "shingle" or "stair step" fashion, in which one statement is made and a subsequent statement develops it. This is consistent with Hebrew parallelism.
In the synagogue itself, in 44/45, we see either synonymous or synthetic parallelism. Take your pick. Either 45 is repeating 44 without developing it further, or it is adding to the force of 44. Either way, hearing and learning from the Father is equivalent to "drawing," and an explanation of unbelief. Why do some not believe? Because they are not drawn by the Father. Why? Because EVERYONE who hears and learns from the Father comes to Jesus. The addition of a new qualifier, the universal positive, "everyone" leads me to view it as synthetic, as it clarifies and adds force to the previous statement (44),where the universal negative (Nobody can come) is stated.
Moving on, John, adds another layer as if to reinforce his meaning, not by a new line of dialogue, but a parallel incident, this time among the Disciples. They too are stumbling over Jesus' words,and there are those there who do not believe (Judas). Why? Because belief is something granted by the Father. Nobody can come to Jesus without the Father granting it to him. Those who do not come are those to whom it has not been granted to come.
So, having been "granted" by the Father runs parallel to being taught by the Father, which in turn runs parallel to being drawn by the Father. So, in this context, "drawing" is explained in a number of ways in the context of explaining why some people believe in Jesus and others do not.
The Arminian contention is that all people are drawn equally, which is why the often run to John 12. Otherwise, they try to insert a disjunction in 44, which the text does not support, per 45.
Well, if that's so, on Arminian grounds, that leads directly to universalism given the constraints of the text of John 6. Arminians deny universalism.
Phil wrote:
Thanks for your detailed response. Though you've certainly clarified for me some things about Hebrew parallelism, I'm still having difficulties with the reasoning behind your analysis. You said that "Everyone who hears and learns from the Father and 'be taught of God' explains what drawing is." You justify this on the basis of the parallelism, where 45 explains 44. Now in the passage I posted from genesis, we have something going on that, while I'm not sure which of your categories it falls into, seems to negate the type of reasoning you are engaging in.
I explained this. If we take the text you quoted as a couplet, which is what is required for a parallel statement, we have synonymous parallelism if we stipulate to your reading of the text.
Synonymous parallelism:
Synonymous Parallelism: In synonymous parallelism, the second line of the pair repeats the idea of the first line without making any significant addition or subtraction.
You say:
"In the synagogue itself, in 44/45, we see either synonymous or synthetic parallelism. Take your pick. Either 45 is repeating 44 without developing it further, or it is adding to the force of 44. Either way, hearing and learning from the Father is equivalent to "drawing," and an explanation of unbelief."
Well, it's not antithetical parallelism. It's not emblematic parallelism. So we have two choices.
1. Synonymous. If synonymous, then 45 simply restates 44.
2. Synthetic. If synthetic, then the second line completes, advances, or develops the thought of the first line by supplying additional ideas.
Synthetic parallelism is a form of synonymous parallelism. Go back and read the definitions.
I've explained the rest already. You say you don't understand. I'm afraid you need to be more specific. Hearing and learning are "equivalent" with drawing insofar as drawing and "taught of God" are the divine actions that result in persons hearing and learning. Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes. How do we know this? Because we're told this by Jesus to explain the unbelief of those in the audience.
Once more:
Jesus says,
1. Nobody can come to me unless my Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.
2. It is written in the prophets, "And they shall be taught of God.
a. Who is "they?" They are those who are drawn. They are the "everyone" of his next statement.
3. Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me.
Who comes? Everyone who hears and learns from the Father?
Who are they? They are the ones drawn.
Who are they? They are those taught by God.
What you and Godismyjudge below do is posit disjunctions between one o more of the following:
Those drawn and those who come. - eg. Everyone is drawn, but only some come.
Those who are taught and those who learn. Everyone is taught (drawn) but not all of them learn.
Those who hear and those who learn. Everyone is taught,and they hear, but not all of them learn, or everyone is taught (drawn), some hear,and those who learn are a subset of those who hear.
Consequently, this would mean:
Only some who are drawn come.
Some who are taught hear and learn.
Some who hear learn, but not all.
This successfully upends the text as an explanation of the reason some believe and others do not,when Jesus predicates hearing and learning on teaching/drawing. Some people believe and others do not? Why? Does Jesus say, "Because some people hear and do not learn?" Does Jesus say, "Because everybody is taught but only some hear and learn and thus come?" Does Jesus say, "Because everybody is drawn but only some come?" Those would, at best, only restate the problem and not answer the problem of unbelief.
According to John 6, rather, in Jesus words, the reason some believe and others don't is because some are drawn by God and others are not; some are taught by God and others are not, and all who hear and learn come.
I've never claimed that 45 explains drawing "exhaustively." Rather, I am discussing it's usage in this particular text. To quote James White:
The drawing of the Father leads those drawn to the Son. Why? Well, part of it has to do with imparting knowledge, teaching. God does the teaching. And just as the drawing of the Father brings all who are drawn to the Son (and hence to eternal life), so too He never fails in imparting the knowledge that leads to life. All who are taught "hear" (aorist) and "learn" (aorist), and as a result of this action, come to Christ (just as v. 37 and 44). Here all truly does mean all, because it has a specific delimiter in the context: all drawn, all given, all taught, all hearing, etc. In v. 45 the emphasis remains upon the Father, not upon those taught, those who, as a result, hear and learn.
Also, Thibodeux is the one who tried to link this text to Hosea 11. Some commentators do this. Granting that connection, what does this say about John 6? I've been over this too.Here's Hosea 11:1-4
1When Israel was a youth I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called My son.
2The more they called them,
The more they went from them;
They kept sacrificing to the Baals
And burning incense to idols.
3Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk,
I took them in My arms;
But they did not know that I healed them.
4I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love,
And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws;
And I bent down and fed them.
This text is not about God "wooing" Israel, it's about God's deliverance of Israel, the Exodus. It's about His faithfulness to them. This text, if we want to talk about it's relation to the meaning of "drawing" is on our side, not his. God did not "woo" Israel out of Egypt or "woo" Israel into the land of Canaan. Indeed, He did not "woo" them into the Exile and the Return. He drove them there and pulled them out.
I don't know if I fully understand your categories for Hebrew Parallelism (or whether they are accurate and exhaustive), but I simply can't see why the parallelism would make the latter statement "equivalent" to the former.
I'm applying standard definitions you can find in any text on hermeneutics, particular OT Exegesis. You can also find it in more popular works like How To Read the Bible For All It's Worth.
In genesis, we have "in the image of God he created them" parallel to "male and female he created them." This seems to me to not be an equivalence with, nor a strengthening of, the first statement. I see the second statement, rather, as pointing out a major, central aspect of what is meant in the first: God created humankind in his image, and one major thing this means is that we are created for a male/female reciprocal relationship that models the trinity. But there are also ways we are created in God's image--our rationality, our creativity, our brotherly love, etc. The second line is not equivalent or stronger than the first, but weaker, because it lists a particular (though central) aspect of what was mentioned in the first. It "expands" on the idea by giving more detail, but it also leaves stuff out by becoming specific.
Genesis is not John, nor is Genesis Isaiah. John has a particular affinity for Isaiah's style and content. That too is a fairly standard view.
I'd say you're reading quite a bit into "image" here. In Genesis, the image of God refers to "dominion." See Turretinfan's archives for more on that text. I do agree with much of what you say about the image of God in man, but I don't think Genesis addresses those issues. Rather, I would say that the Trinitarian model is more properly inferred from the relationship between Christ and the Church which in turn is predicated on the relation between Father and Son, per Paul. The Father stands over Christ and loves Christ. Christ stands over the Church and loves the Church and so on. The husband/wife relationship is is representative of the relationship between Christ and the Church, and from there we can draw Trinitarian inferences.
Might it be the case that, in the same way, the statement that everyone who hears and learns from the Father and will "be taught of God" comes to Jesus is meant to highlight the specific, central (in terms of the salvation story) quality of the "drawing," but does not exclude other potential aspects of it, such as the drawing of those that do not eventually come to Jesus?
If it does so highlight a specific quality, it would be its effectual nature, namely everyone so drawn comes.
People not coming who are drawn is excluded because 44/45 is an explanation of why some people believe and not others. Christ says this because they begin grumbling among themselves. Again, the next account magnifies this even more when the Lord says specifically that there are those there who do not believe (alluding to Judas). Why do they not believe? Because it has not been so granted.
The unspoken problem you seem to have is "free will." Where is the supporting argument?
Michael Williams wrote:
Your "epexegesis" is impressive; it's impervious within the frame of your focus.
Your lack of alterative exegesis is impressive. It's impervious within the frame of your focus.
That would be the end of it; if the scriptures consisted of this portion of text solely, but the problem is the remaining 31000+ verses of the Bible.
The remaining 31,000 plus verses of the Bible do not discuss this topic. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how they refute Reformed soteriology.
Why is epexegesis required to understand a handful of verses as a passage, but erroneous to apply to all of the Scriptures as one body for complete apprehension of divine revelation?
Because not all texts are epexegetical to others.
That said, we use Scripture to interpret Scripture. The Reformed believe in the analogy of faith. By way of contrast, where do we find Libertarian Free Will taught in the Scriptures? As it goes, so goes Arminian soteriology.
Can epexegesis of another isolated section of the Scriptures, like 1 Timothy 4, make for example the language of v. 10 conform to a strictly Calvinistic understanding, when we hear that God is the Savoir of all people, especially of those who believe?1. Universalistic texts don't distinguish between universal atonement, to take just one Arminian objection, and universal salvation. So you'll need to demonstrate how you believe they do, if you're not a universalist.
2. Calvinism has no problem with this. It's a statement of identity. God is the Savior of all men in a general sense. (a) There is only one God who can justify a sinner. (b) God has made provisions for common grace.
God is the Savior of all men, e.g. the only Savior any man can ever know and the general patron of all people (common grace). He is not the Savior of all men when it comes to eternal salvation, because not all men are saved. He is the Savior of all men extensively with respect to common graces. God restrains evil in the world, gives us light, feeds us, and a host of other activities. Unless the disputant is a universalist, this text cannot refer to all men without exception.
If we take these references to mean everybody without exception in 1 Timothy, then what of the following texts? Using the Arminian yardstick:
• 1 Tim. 2:8 "everywhere" means "the North Pole" or "in hell" or “the moon.”
• 1 Tim. 4:4 "everything God created is good" include Satan; note that verse 3 limits verse 4 to food and marriage.
• 1 Tim. 6:17 "everything for our enjoyment" includes sin
Godismyjudge said:
Here's the issue I have. You seem to be saying drawing is equivalent to hearing and learning. But I think teaching is a better candidate for equivalency. Who draws? God. Who teaches? God. Who hears and learns? Us. So hearing and learning doesn't seem parallel to drawing, but teaching does.
Hearing and learning is a response to teaching (i.e. drawing). This seems to be the purpose of the law. The law as a schoolmaster leads us to Christ. It prepares us for saving grace.
In Christ audience, some believe Moses (John 6:14) and some didn't (John 5:46). In other words, some heard, but didn't learn.
1. Then in that case, teaching is restricted to the external, general call.
2. On those grounds, which are Arminian considerations, Arminianism is thereby falsified, for everyone who hears and learns comes. So, you'll have to posit a disjunction between those who hear and those who learn in this text. Instead, you've run to John 5, but John 5 is not citing Isaiah 54:13, nor is it the same pericope, with the same audience, context, etc. More importantly, this portion of the text is explaining why some people believe and not others. Just once, I would like to find an Arminian who can actually read through John 6 without running back to John 5 or forward to John 12.
3. Nobody who comes is turned away.
Yes, God teaches. What is the result of the teaching? They hear and learn. Everyone who hears and learns comes. Those who come are not turned away. It's the Arminian who says that God's teaching is universal, by way of UPG. So, why do some believe and not others?
This text is given as an explanation of why some believe and not others.
Some people were grumbling. Jesus said, "Nobody is able to come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."
These people were being taught by God. The text from Isaiah was viewed by some as Messianic. "He will be a righteous king over them taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days. " This in turn evokes other texts, including Jer.33, Joel 2, Micah 4, Zeph 3, Mal. 1. All the citizens of the Kingdom are "Those who are taught by God."
So the referent for "everyone who hears and learns" refers to citizens of the Kingdom, the regenerate, not to some sort of generalized teaching ministry like the tutoring of the Law or the general preaching of the word, in this case by God Incarnate in a Jewish synagogue no less. The irony here is that these same people in Jesus audience believed they were citizens of the Kingdom already, but they were not, for, if they were,they would have believed. We see this made quite clear later on in John when Jesus tells off the Pharisees saying that if they were truly Abraham's children they would believe in Him.
Nobody can come unless the Father draws them.
They are taught of God, because God must teach them for them to come.
Everyone who is taught comes, because everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes.
Nobody who comes is turned away.
Everybody who comes is raised on the last day.
If this drawing is universal and equal to all, friend, then, pray tell, why do some believe and not others? If we confine the "teaching" to the Law, then we're confining teaching to what we might call the outward preaching of the Word. Everyone who hears this comes according to v. 45, given those considerations. But the text has, by this point, already stated that all who come are not turned away, and those drawn all raised up. You're left with universalism on Arminian considerations alone, but you're no universalist.
So, let's plug some of these considerations of yours into the text.
Nobody is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Let's stipulate that this teaching is the Law.
It is written in the prophets "And they shall be taught (the Law) by God.1. You've posited, thereby that those who learn are a subset less than those who hear. Where's the supporting argument? How does this explain the unbelief of those in this place in light of v. 44?
Everyone who hears the teaching of the Law and learns from it comes to me.
2. You'd have to posit a corresponding disjunction between those who are drawn and those who are raised in v. 44. Where is this to be found in the text? Who is the "him" of vs. 44?
Nobody can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
This him is the one who is drawn.
And (conjunction). I will raise him up on the last day.
That is, Jesus will raise up the person who is drawn. So, these must be the same person. The text simply doesn't support such a disjunction.
Epexegetical statement begins:
It is written in the Prophets, "And they will be taught of God."Who is "they?" It would be those who are drawn, which is identical with those raised.
Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to meWhy do they hear and learn from the Father? Because the Father teaches them. Ergo, everyone who is taught by the Father hears and learns from Him, comes to Jesus, and is raised on the last day. I can read this text without resorting to disjunctions where none exist and where, if they existed, it wouldn't make sense as an explanation of the reason lying behind persons' unbelief.
You are positing LFW to make this disjunction. You're reading would be either:
Everyone who (chooses to) hear and learn from the Father comes to me
or
Everyone who hears (and chooses to) learn from the Father comes to meNote carefully, you're inserting something not stated in the text.
1. Why does one person choose to hear and/or learn and not another? Remember, this text is intended to explain this phenomenon. Your reading doesn't make sense as an explanation of the reasons for unbelief. It only moves the question back a step.
2. Where can we find LFW taught in the Bible?
Josephus, The Canon, And Historical Skepticism
An Eastern Orthodox poster by the screen name of Jimmy continues to post a lot of bad arguments and misinformation regarding the Old Testament canon in various threads. Below is a response I just posted in one of the threads that's no longer on the front page of this blog.
Jimmy keeps repeating bad arguments that have already been refuted:
"First century Judaism isn't monolithic!"
How many times have we explained to you that we're arguing for a majority view of the canon, not a "monolithic" Judaism?
You write:
"All you have is a witness to one sect of first century Judaism. The only thing we know about this sect is that it isn't the true people of God."
Josephus doesn't say that he's speaking for "one sect". And we know much more about Josephus than that he "isn't [part of] the true people of God". He was a Jew who lived during the apostolic era and had access to many sources relevant to the first-century canonical beliefs of the Jewish people. The fact that Josephus wasn't a Christian doesn't prevent him from having common human faculties, such as eyesight and memory. You don't have to be a Christian in order to be a credible historical source. That's why Christian historians frequently accept the testimony of Josephus and other non-Christians when reconstructing first-century Judaism or when discussing what historical sources said about Jesus, for example. The idea that Josephus can't be trusted to tell us about the canon of the Judaism he witnessed and that others he consulted had witnessed, because he wasn't a Christian, is absurd.
You write:
"Oh, and scholars recognize that he is speaking in apologetic mode, and can't be taken entirely seriously."
It was common for ancient sources to speak hyperbolically or exaggerate in some contexts, just as some modern sources do so. That's not just true of Josephus, but also of some of the church fathers, for example. Somebody like Basil of Caesarea or Augustine will refer to a belief as if it was universally accepted, even though we know from other sources that it wasn't, but their testimony still has some value in telling us what they believed and in telling us that their belief was popular enough to lead them to think that it was universal or to speak as if it was. We don't dismiss a source like Basil or Augustine just because he sometimes was inaccurate in speaking hyperbolically or exaggerating, for example. Steve Hays and I have already acknowledged that some Jews disagreed with Josephus. We're not arguing that Josephus' canon was universally agreed upon. But it's significant that Josephus thought that his canon was widely accepted, and other sources suggest that Josephus represented the majority of Jews in his rejection of the Apocrypha.
You write:
"How is it not comparable? An heretical sect is an heretical sect."
You're changing the subject. We were discussing whether Josephus' view represents the view of the majority of the Jews of that era. I was saying that you haven't demonstrated that Josephus and Mormonism are comparable in terms of their relative size. You haven't shown that Josephus was to first-century Judaism what Mormonism is to Christianity. I wasn't denying that Josephus and Mormonism are both wrong in their rejection of Christ.
You write:
"I've given you lots and lots of evidences that their canon doesn't line up with yours. Since it is not my position that there was a settled canon at this time, it is hardly something I need to document that there was a particular canon. The fact we can both cite sources shows there wasn't."
Again, since you've failed to make a case for Eastern Orthodoxy's alleged authority to settle the canon for us, you haven't given us any alternative that's as good as or better than following whatever Jewish canon Jesus and the apostles seem to have accepted in the first century. I disagree with your arguments about whether Esther was commonly accepted as part of the Jewish canon, but even if we were to accept your claims about Esther, the exclusion of Esther would do nothing to add the Apocrypha to the canon. In other words, whether you want to argue that all 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament were part of the Jewish canon of the first century or argue that less than 39 were part of it, you've given us no reason to think that the Apocryphal books were part of the mainstream canon, and you've given us no reason to think that Eastern Orthodoxy had the authority to add those books later.
And your claim that "The fact we can both cite sources shows there wasn't [a canon]" is ridiculous. If most Jews followed canon X, the fact that you can cite some sources disagreeing with that canon doesn't prove that there was no majority canon. As we've explained to you many times, we're not arguing that our canon was universally agreed upon. That's not the issue, and the fact that you keep trying to make it the issue, even after being corrected so many times, doesn't reflect well on you.
You write:
"Philo was found to quote the apocrypha. Josephus quotes it. Neither says that the canon excludes these books. In short you've got nothing."
Again, the issue isn't whether Apocryphal books are quoted. A source can quote a book without considering it canonical.
And your claim that Josephus doesn't exclude the Apocrypha is absurd. It's reminiscent of your ridiculous claim that Jerome and Rufinus excluded Esther, even though both men include Esther. Do you consult these sources before you make claims about them? Josephus refers to twenty-two books, which wouldn't include your Apocrypha, and he comments that the canon was closed prior to the time when the Apocryphal books were written (Against Apion, 1:8). He comments, in the passage I just cited, "It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time". Other Jewish sources also refer to such a cessation of prophecy and refer to the canon's closure prior to the time of the Apocryphal books.
You write:
"You haven't shown your position is a majority position either in reality or in the evidence."
We've cited far more Jewish support for the exclusion of the Apocryphal books than you've cited for the inclusion of them. If Josephus and the other sources we've cited from Roger Beckwith's book and elsewhere don't represent a majority, then how did the Jewish people get to the point of accepting their present canon that excludes the Apocrypha? Are you suggesting that they previously accepted some or all of the Apocrypha, then stopped doing so? If so, why are we supposed to believe that? If not, then what's your point? Are you suggesting that the evidence doesn't favor either conclusion? If so, that's a ridiculous position to take. If so many Jewish sources refer to the canon as closing prior to the time of the Apocrypha, whereas not nearly as many include one or more of the Apocryphal books, and the large majority of Jews from antiquity until today have excluded the Apocrypha from their canon in practice, the simpler and preferable explanation of the data is that most Jews excluded the Apocrypha during the timeframe in question. It would be much less likely that some shift took place in which a majority in support of the Apocrypha changed into a majority in opposition to it.
You write:
"Transmission of 2000 year old information is not even nearly uniform. That's why they can dig up tons of previously unknown information at Qumran. This is especially so for Judaism which has suffered a number of continuity breaks since 20 centuries ago with limited means and desire to copy obscure sources."
Speculating that the historical record might be distorted doesn't prove that it is. If the record is distorted, we still have to rely on it when researching historical issues like the ones we're discussing. You want to cast doubt on the credibility of the historical record, since the record doesn't support your position on the issue under discussion. But anybody with a losing position in a historical argument could take the approach you're taking. A Gnostic, Mormon, or Roman Catholic could claim that any evidence you cite for Eastern Orthodoxy or against his belief system comes from a distorted historical record. Would you accept that sort of argumentation if it was turned against Eastern Orthodoxy?
You write:
"If you ask Mormons in centuries from now, yep you'll probably turn up things that agree with Mormonism! So if you quote Jewish sources, you'll find things that agree with later Judaism, because that is the material that interests later Judaism."
First of all, Jews weren't the only people who preserved Jewish documents.
Second, Jewish sources aren't the only ones who commented on issues related to Judaism. Many patristic sources, for example, confirm that the Jews of their day excluded the Apocrypha from their canon.
Third, even if we only had Jewish documents that the Jewish people had selectively preserved in some distorting manner, the fact would remain that those would be the documents we have access to. Speculating that there might have been other documents that would support your position, but that the Jewish people didn't preserve those other documents, doesn't give us any reason to think that such documents actually existed. If they did exist, then why didn't the more honest Jews or non-Jewish sources refer to those documents? Or were all Jews dishonest? Were all non-Jews who knew of such documents too apathetic or incompetent to preserve references to those documents?
Fourth, I want to note, once again, that your comparison to Mormonism assumes what needs to be proven. You keep describing scenarios in which a source like Josephus might have been comparable to Mormonism, yet you never give us evidence leading to the conclusion that such sources were comparable to Mormonism. You just speculate that they might have been.
You write:
"Judaism was being turned upside down in this period, by Christianity and by the destruction of the temple. There is no need for more information than this."
If we have so little information about ancient Judaism, then how do you know that ancient Judaism "was being turned upside down in this period, by Christianity and by the destruction of the temple"? How can you trust the ancient sources who provided you with such information if the historical record is as unreliable as you've been suggesting?
Jimmy keeps repeating bad arguments that have already been refuted:
"First century Judaism isn't monolithic!"
How many times have we explained to you that we're arguing for a majority view of the canon, not a "monolithic" Judaism?
You write:
"All you have is a witness to one sect of first century Judaism. The only thing we know about this sect is that it isn't the true people of God."
Josephus doesn't say that he's speaking for "one sect". And we know much more about Josephus than that he "isn't [part of] the true people of God". He was a Jew who lived during the apostolic era and had access to many sources relevant to the first-century canonical beliefs of the Jewish people. The fact that Josephus wasn't a Christian doesn't prevent him from having common human faculties, such as eyesight and memory. You don't have to be a Christian in order to be a credible historical source. That's why Christian historians frequently accept the testimony of Josephus and other non-Christians when reconstructing first-century Judaism or when discussing what historical sources said about Jesus, for example. The idea that Josephus can't be trusted to tell us about the canon of the Judaism he witnessed and that others he consulted had witnessed, because he wasn't a Christian, is absurd.
You write:
"Oh, and scholars recognize that he is speaking in apologetic mode, and can't be taken entirely seriously."
It was common for ancient sources to speak hyperbolically or exaggerate in some contexts, just as some modern sources do so. That's not just true of Josephus, but also of some of the church fathers, for example. Somebody like Basil of Caesarea or Augustine will refer to a belief as if it was universally accepted, even though we know from other sources that it wasn't, but their testimony still has some value in telling us what they believed and in telling us that their belief was popular enough to lead them to think that it was universal or to speak as if it was. We don't dismiss a source like Basil or Augustine just because he sometimes was inaccurate in speaking hyperbolically or exaggerating, for example. Steve Hays and I have already acknowledged that some Jews disagreed with Josephus. We're not arguing that Josephus' canon was universally agreed upon. But it's significant that Josephus thought that his canon was widely accepted, and other sources suggest that Josephus represented the majority of Jews in his rejection of the Apocrypha.
You write:
"How is it not comparable? An heretical sect is an heretical sect."
You're changing the subject. We were discussing whether Josephus' view represents the view of the majority of the Jews of that era. I was saying that you haven't demonstrated that Josephus and Mormonism are comparable in terms of their relative size. You haven't shown that Josephus was to first-century Judaism what Mormonism is to Christianity. I wasn't denying that Josephus and Mormonism are both wrong in their rejection of Christ.
You write:
"I've given you lots and lots of evidences that their canon doesn't line up with yours. Since it is not my position that there was a settled canon at this time, it is hardly something I need to document that there was a particular canon. The fact we can both cite sources shows there wasn't."
Again, since you've failed to make a case for Eastern Orthodoxy's alleged authority to settle the canon for us, you haven't given us any alternative that's as good as or better than following whatever Jewish canon Jesus and the apostles seem to have accepted in the first century. I disagree with your arguments about whether Esther was commonly accepted as part of the Jewish canon, but even if we were to accept your claims about Esther, the exclusion of Esther would do nothing to add the Apocrypha to the canon. In other words, whether you want to argue that all 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament were part of the Jewish canon of the first century or argue that less than 39 were part of it, you've given us no reason to think that the Apocryphal books were part of the mainstream canon, and you've given us no reason to think that Eastern Orthodoxy had the authority to add those books later.
And your claim that "The fact we can both cite sources shows there wasn't [a canon]" is ridiculous. If most Jews followed canon X, the fact that you can cite some sources disagreeing with that canon doesn't prove that there was no majority canon. As we've explained to you many times, we're not arguing that our canon was universally agreed upon. That's not the issue, and the fact that you keep trying to make it the issue, even after being corrected so many times, doesn't reflect well on you.
You write:
"Philo was found to quote the apocrypha. Josephus quotes it. Neither says that the canon excludes these books. In short you've got nothing."
Again, the issue isn't whether Apocryphal books are quoted. A source can quote a book without considering it canonical.
And your claim that Josephus doesn't exclude the Apocrypha is absurd. It's reminiscent of your ridiculous claim that Jerome and Rufinus excluded Esther, even though both men include Esther. Do you consult these sources before you make claims about them? Josephus refers to twenty-two books, which wouldn't include your Apocrypha, and he comments that the canon was closed prior to the time when the Apocryphal books were written (Against Apion, 1:8). He comments, in the passage I just cited, "It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time". Other Jewish sources also refer to such a cessation of prophecy and refer to the canon's closure prior to the time of the Apocryphal books.
You write:
"You haven't shown your position is a majority position either in reality or in the evidence."
We've cited far more Jewish support for the exclusion of the Apocryphal books than you've cited for the inclusion of them. If Josephus and the other sources we've cited from Roger Beckwith's book and elsewhere don't represent a majority, then how did the Jewish people get to the point of accepting their present canon that excludes the Apocrypha? Are you suggesting that they previously accepted some or all of the Apocrypha, then stopped doing so? If so, why are we supposed to believe that? If not, then what's your point? Are you suggesting that the evidence doesn't favor either conclusion? If so, that's a ridiculous position to take. If so many Jewish sources refer to the canon as closing prior to the time of the Apocrypha, whereas not nearly as many include one or more of the Apocryphal books, and the large majority of Jews from antiquity until today have excluded the Apocrypha from their canon in practice, the simpler and preferable explanation of the data is that most Jews excluded the Apocrypha during the timeframe in question. It would be much less likely that some shift took place in which a majority in support of the Apocrypha changed into a majority in opposition to it.
You write:
"Transmission of 2000 year old information is not even nearly uniform. That's why they can dig up tons of previously unknown information at Qumran. This is especially so for Judaism which has suffered a number of continuity breaks since 20 centuries ago with limited means and desire to copy obscure sources."
Speculating that the historical record might be distorted doesn't prove that it is. If the record is distorted, we still have to rely on it when researching historical issues like the ones we're discussing. You want to cast doubt on the credibility of the historical record, since the record doesn't support your position on the issue under discussion. But anybody with a losing position in a historical argument could take the approach you're taking. A Gnostic, Mormon, or Roman Catholic could claim that any evidence you cite for Eastern Orthodoxy or against his belief system comes from a distorted historical record. Would you accept that sort of argumentation if it was turned against Eastern Orthodoxy?
You write:
"If you ask Mormons in centuries from now, yep you'll probably turn up things that agree with Mormonism! So if you quote Jewish sources, you'll find things that agree with later Judaism, because that is the material that interests later Judaism."
First of all, Jews weren't the only people who preserved Jewish documents.
Second, Jewish sources aren't the only ones who commented on issues related to Judaism. Many patristic sources, for example, confirm that the Jews of their day excluded the Apocrypha from their canon.
Third, even if we only had Jewish documents that the Jewish people had selectively preserved in some distorting manner, the fact would remain that those would be the documents we have access to. Speculating that there might have been other documents that would support your position, but that the Jewish people didn't preserve those other documents, doesn't give us any reason to think that such documents actually existed. If they did exist, then why didn't the more honest Jews or non-Jewish sources refer to those documents? Or were all Jews dishonest? Were all non-Jews who knew of such documents too apathetic or incompetent to preserve references to those documents?
Fourth, I want to note, once again, that your comparison to Mormonism assumes what needs to be proven. You keep describing scenarios in which a source like Josephus might have been comparable to Mormonism, yet you never give us evidence leading to the conclusion that such sources were comparable to Mormonism. You just speculate that they might have been.
You write:
"Judaism was being turned upside down in this period, by Christianity and by the destruction of the temple. There is no need for more information than this."
If we have so little information about ancient Judaism, then how do you know that ancient Judaism "was being turned upside down in this period, by Christianity and by the destruction of the temple"? How can you trust the ancient sources who provided you with such information if the historical record is as unreliable as you've been suggesting?
Does Calvinism commit the no-true-Scotsman fallacy?
BJ77 SAID:
Steve,
You pointed out a major contention with Arminians defense of Heb.6, but I don't remember reading how you dismiss the "No True Scotsman" fallacy charged against Calvinist. I think, at best, you showed both camps commit the fallacy. Although I could have misread you. Could you please clarify?
Thanks,
B.J.
*************
That’s a good question. And it can be answered on different levels:
1. There’s an asymmetry between Calvinism and Arminianism at this point, even if both were guilty of the NTS fallacy. For Arminianism needs to Heb 6 prove Arminianism and disprove Calvinism, whereas Calvinism doesn’t need Heb 6 to prove Calvinism or disprove Arminianism.
Simply put, Heb 6 is an Arminian prooftext, not a Reformed prooftext. So even if the Reformed interpretation were guilty of the NTS fallacy on this particular passage, that wouldn’t falsify Calvinism in case the Arminian interpretation is guilty of the very same fallacy.
If Heb 6 is an Arminian prooftext, and if these two, opposing interpretations (Arminian and Reformed) cancel each other out, then that’s a net loss for Arminianism, not for Calvinism. In would leave Calvinism intact and unscathed, whereas the case for Arminianism would be drastically weakened since Heb 6 is far and away the most (apparently) promising passage of Scripture that an Arminian can muster to disprove the Reformed doctrine of perseverance.
2. In what sense is Calvinism falsifiable?
i) A Reformed interpretation of Scripture should be falsifiable on exegetical grounds.
ii) Should a Reformed interpretation be falsifiable on extrascriptural grounds? Depends on what you mean. If Scripture is true, and if the Reformed interpretation of Scripture is true, then no extrascriptural evidence could falsify that interpretation, for whatever is true cannot be falsified.
iii) Calvinism is a form of determinism. Theistic determinism.
The logical alternative to Calvinism would be some form of indeterminism. But indeterminism tends to be self-refuting. It’s like one of those SF movies in which a scientist creates an adaptive, AI program. Once he activates the program, it takes on a life of its own. It evolves in a direction which he cannot predict or control. He can switch it on, but he can’t switch it off.
Indeterminism subverts our basic truth-conditions. Without providence, there’s no way to ground induction. Unless human reason is operating in the way it was designed to perform, there’s no reason to trust it. Indeterminism undermines the reliability of memory, testimony, and sensory perception. There is no self-correcting mechanism to arrest cumulative error or malfunction.
So, even if Calvinism were false, you would need something like Calvinism to anchor our basic truth-conditions.
3. In principle, what extrascriptural evidence, if any, would count against the Reformed interpretation of Heb 6?
According to Calvinism, the elect or regenerate cannot commit apostasy. But election and regeneration aren’t evident or self-evident properties. These are not directly detectable. We can’t perceive or intuit if someone is elect or regenerate.
We can only form a probable judgment on the basis of their behavior. Regeneration will generally have a public manifestation in terms of faith and conduct.
But Christians are still sinners. Calvinism denies perfectionism.
So all we ever had was a presumption. There was prima facie evidence that someone was a Christian. But that always fell well short of compelling evidence. For all we can observe is the effect, not the cause.
And the relation between cause and effect, regeneration and faith, is somewhat opaque—due to the fact that every Christian is still a sinner.
Therefore, nothing would ever count as evidence that one of the elect committed apostasy. There are no counterexamples.
And that’s because there are no examples to counter. Calvinism never reasoned from faith to regeneration as a necessary inference. Hence, one cannot reason from faith to the loss of faith as a necessary (or even probable) inference regarding the apostate’s initial state of grace.
BTW, I not talking about whether the elect can enjoy self-knowledge of their own election. We enjoy privileged access to our own mental states. So the assurance of salvation is possible.
4. Does this mean a Calvinist is guilty of the NTS fallacy? If the considerations I just adduced were ad hoc, ex post facto considerations introduced as a face-saving device to deflect evidence to the contrary, then Calvinism would be guilty of the NTS fallacy.
But that is not the case. Calvinism didn’t formulate election or regeneration to evade the Arminian interpretation of Heb 6. Calvinism believes in election and regeneration on grounds independent of that particular debate. And the Reformed denial of perfectionism isn’t even a Reformed distinctive.
In reconciling apostasy and perseverance, Calvinism is drawing on preexisting resources. It applies to this case certain doctrines which it holds for reasons irrespective of this case.
It’s not as if we’re reinterpreting the evidence to accommodate our theological system. Since we never regarded faith as a transparent sign of regeneration, we never regarded the loss of faith as evidence against the doctrine of perseverance. And, indeed, we believe that a true child of God can suffer a crisis of faith or temporary lapse of faith. Become a backslider.
I’ve applied these considerations to Heb 6. I’ve not devised these considerations with a view to Heb 6. And it’s a plus for Calvinism that it has these internal resources.
5. Does this render the Reformed interpretation of Heb 6 unfalsifiable? At one level, yes.
So what? Unless we subscribe to radical scepticism, which is implicit irrational, there’s no reason to make falsifiability a universal criterion.
Falsifiable beliefs are beliefs that fall short of knowledge. Does every belief fall short of knowledge? Do we know nothing at all?
But even uncertainty is parasitic on certainty. You can’t be uncertain of everything, for in that event you have no standard by which to probabilify various claims.
6. Finally, the NTS fallacy runs the ironic risk of begging the question. To use the illustration which Anthony Flew originally proposed, it’s only if we stipulate to the impeccable Scottish pedigree of the suspect that it would be special pleading to deny his Scottish pedigree in the face of probative counterevidence.
And since Flew’s illustration is hypothetical, he is free to stipulate the minor premise (i.e. no true Scotsman would commit a sex crime).
Yet when we move the fallacy out of the hypothetical realm and into the real world, then the parallel breaks down. To say that the Reformed reading of Heb 6 is analogous to Flew’s illustration merely assumes what it needs to prove: just as the suspect is a true Scotsman, the apostate is a true Christian.
But that’s tendentious. A critic of Calvinism needs to establish his operating assumption before he can invoke the NTS fallacy against Calvinism.
Steve,
You pointed out a major contention with Arminians defense of Heb.6, but I don't remember reading how you dismiss the "No True Scotsman" fallacy charged against Calvinist. I think, at best, you showed both camps commit the fallacy. Although I could have misread you. Could you please clarify?
Thanks,
B.J.
*************
That’s a good question. And it can be answered on different levels:
1. There’s an asymmetry between Calvinism and Arminianism at this point, even if both were guilty of the NTS fallacy. For Arminianism needs to Heb 6 prove Arminianism and disprove Calvinism, whereas Calvinism doesn’t need Heb 6 to prove Calvinism or disprove Arminianism.
Simply put, Heb 6 is an Arminian prooftext, not a Reformed prooftext. So even if the Reformed interpretation were guilty of the NTS fallacy on this particular passage, that wouldn’t falsify Calvinism in case the Arminian interpretation is guilty of the very same fallacy.
If Heb 6 is an Arminian prooftext, and if these two, opposing interpretations (Arminian and Reformed) cancel each other out, then that’s a net loss for Arminianism, not for Calvinism. In would leave Calvinism intact and unscathed, whereas the case for Arminianism would be drastically weakened since Heb 6 is far and away the most (apparently) promising passage of Scripture that an Arminian can muster to disprove the Reformed doctrine of perseverance.
2. In what sense is Calvinism falsifiable?
i) A Reformed interpretation of Scripture should be falsifiable on exegetical grounds.
ii) Should a Reformed interpretation be falsifiable on extrascriptural grounds? Depends on what you mean. If Scripture is true, and if the Reformed interpretation of Scripture is true, then no extrascriptural evidence could falsify that interpretation, for whatever is true cannot be falsified.
iii) Calvinism is a form of determinism. Theistic determinism.
The logical alternative to Calvinism would be some form of indeterminism. But indeterminism tends to be self-refuting. It’s like one of those SF movies in which a scientist creates an adaptive, AI program. Once he activates the program, it takes on a life of its own. It evolves in a direction which he cannot predict or control. He can switch it on, but he can’t switch it off.
Indeterminism subverts our basic truth-conditions. Without providence, there’s no way to ground induction. Unless human reason is operating in the way it was designed to perform, there’s no reason to trust it. Indeterminism undermines the reliability of memory, testimony, and sensory perception. There is no self-correcting mechanism to arrest cumulative error or malfunction.
So, even if Calvinism were false, you would need something like Calvinism to anchor our basic truth-conditions.
3. In principle, what extrascriptural evidence, if any, would count against the Reformed interpretation of Heb 6?
According to Calvinism, the elect or regenerate cannot commit apostasy. But election and regeneration aren’t evident or self-evident properties. These are not directly detectable. We can’t perceive or intuit if someone is elect or regenerate.
We can only form a probable judgment on the basis of their behavior. Regeneration will generally have a public manifestation in terms of faith and conduct.
But Christians are still sinners. Calvinism denies perfectionism.
So all we ever had was a presumption. There was prima facie evidence that someone was a Christian. But that always fell well short of compelling evidence. For all we can observe is the effect, not the cause.
And the relation between cause and effect, regeneration and faith, is somewhat opaque—due to the fact that every Christian is still a sinner.
Therefore, nothing would ever count as evidence that one of the elect committed apostasy. There are no counterexamples.
And that’s because there are no examples to counter. Calvinism never reasoned from faith to regeneration as a necessary inference. Hence, one cannot reason from faith to the loss of faith as a necessary (or even probable) inference regarding the apostate’s initial state of grace.
BTW, I not talking about whether the elect can enjoy self-knowledge of their own election. We enjoy privileged access to our own mental states. So the assurance of salvation is possible.
4. Does this mean a Calvinist is guilty of the NTS fallacy? If the considerations I just adduced were ad hoc, ex post facto considerations introduced as a face-saving device to deflect evidence to the contrary, then Calvinism would be guilty of the NTS fallacy.
But that is not the case. Calvinism didn’t formulate election or regeneration to evade the Arminian interpretation of Heb 6. Calvinism believes in election and regeneration on grounds independent of that particular debate. And the Reformed denial of perfectionism isn’t even a Reformed distinctive.
In reconciling apostasy and perseverance, Calvinism is drawing on preexisting resources. It applies to this case certain doctrines which it holds for reasons irrespective of this case.
It’s not as if we’re reinterpreting the evidence to accommodate our theological system. Since we never regarded faith as a transparent sign of regeneration, we never regarded the loss of faith as evidence against the doctrine of perseverance. And, indeed, we believe that a true child of God can suffer a crisis of faith or temporary lapse of faith. Become a backslider.
I’ve applied these considerations to Heb 6. I’ve not devised these considerations with a view to Heb 6. And it’s a plus for Calvinism that it has these internal resources.
5. Does this render the Reformed interpretation of Heb 6 unfalsifiable? At one level, yes.
So what? Unless we subscribe to radical scepticism, which is implicit irrational, there’s no reason to make falsifiability a universal criterion.
Falsifiable beliefs are beliefs that fall short of knowledge. Does every belief fall short of knowledge? Do we know nothing at all?
But even uncertainty is parasitic on certainty. You can’t be uncertain of everything, for in that event you have no standard by which to probabilify various claims.
6. Finally, the NTS fallacy runs the ironic risk of begging the question. To use the illustration which Anthony Flew originally proposed, it’s only if we stipulate to the impeccable Scottish pedigree of the suspect that it would be special pleading to deny his Scottish pedigree in the face of probative counterevidence.
And since Flew’s illustration is hypothetical, he is free to stipulate the minor premise (i.e. no true Scotsman would commit a sex crime).
Yet when we move the fallacy out of the hypothetical realm and into the real world, then the parallel breaks down. To say that the Reformed reading of Heb 6 is analogous to Flew’s illustration merely assumes what it needs to prove: just as the suspect is a true Scotsman, the apostate is a true Christian.
But that’s tendentious. A critic of Calvinism needs to establish his operating assumption before he can invoke the NTS fallacy against Calvinism.
Ludicrously Inadequate
There's been some discussion on Vic Reppert's blog surrounding the claims of one Sir Richard Dawkins in response to C.S. Lewis's trilemma argument. Claims The Dawkins:
I find some inconsistencies with The Dawkins's broader approach here; indeed, with his main atheological strategy.
If "honestly mistaken" is a live option here, if The Dawkins is serious here, then why does he not give this kind of nod to the theist?
Why are we always deluded, irrational, even insane?
We suffer, presumably, from the same meme Jesus suffered from. "The God Delusion" is supposed to be a belief comparable to a psychiatric disease. We suffer from delirium.
He draws analogies between people who believe in God and people who believe a pink elephant is in the room with them. The latter, says The Dawkins, we wouldn't hesitate to throw into a psychiatric ward.
So why does Jesus, arguably a specimen of the God delusion par excellence, receive "honestly mistaken" as a live option here?
Certainly, if Jesus can be "honestly mistaken" about being God himself, how much more then (on Dawkinsian assumptions) can the theist be "honestly mistaken" in his belief that there is a God other than himself?
If Dawkins met a man who said there was a pink elephant in a 10*10 room, would he say that the man could be "honestly mistaken?" How much more would he say that a man who thought he was the pink elephant in the room was "honestly mistaken?"
If Jesus could be "honestly mistaken" then so can all theists. If so, then The Dawkins's position that we are all psychologically deluded saps is, like the Lewis position he critiques, "ludicrously inadequate" (on his own terms).
"But even if that evidence were good, the trilemma on offer would be ludicrously inadequate. A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken. Plenty of people are. In any case, as I said, there is no good historical evidence that he ever thought he was divine."
I find some inconsistencies with The Dawkins's broader approach here; indeed, with his main atheological strategy.
If "honestly mistaken" is a live option here, if The Dawkins is serious here, then why does he not give this kind of nod to the theist?
Why are we always deluded, irrational, even insane?
We suffer, presumably, from the same meme Jesus suffered from. "The God Delusion" is supposed to be a belief comparable to a psychiatric disease. We suffer from delirium.
He draws analogies between people who believe in God and people who believe a pink elephant is in the room with them. The latter, says The Dawkins, we wouldn't hesitate to throw into a psychiatric ward.
So why does Jesus, arguably a specimen of the God delusion par excellence, receive "honestly mistaken" as a live option here?
Certainly, if Jesus can be "honestly mistaken" about being God himself, how much more then (on Dawkinsian assumptions) can the theist be "honestly mistaken" in his belief that there is a God other than himself?
If Dawkins met a man who said there was a pink elephant in a 10*10 room, would he say that the man could be "honestly mistaken?" How much more would he say that a man who thought he was the pink elephant in the room was "honestly mistaken?"
If Jesus could be "honestly mistaken" then so can all theists. If so, then The Dawkins's position that we are all psychologically deluded saps is, like the Lewis position he critiques, "ludicrously inadequate" (on his own terms).
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Vincentian canon
Orthodox epologists often invoke the Vincentian canon against Evangelical theology. The standard by which we distinguish the true church from heretics and schismatics is the threefold criterion of ubiquity, antiquity, and unanimity: “What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est).
By this criterion, Evangelical theology is summarily condemned for its theological innovations. Novel interpretations of Scripture can’t possibly be true. For how could Christians have been so wrong for so long?
At that point, the Orthodox epologist doesn’t even feel the need to open a Bible and see for himself if, say, St. Paul teaches sola fide. For the Orthodox epologist knows, a priori, that no novel interpretation of Paul is even possible.
There are, however, a couple of basic problems with the Vincentian canon:
1.When an Evangelical begins to point out obvious examples of division within the early church, such as the Christological and Trinitarian controversies, iconoclasm, schisms, and variations in the canon, the Orthodox epologist has to put the backpeddle to the metal.
He suddenly abandons the Vincentian canon for the Newmanesque canon. What counts is living tradition. An evolving consensus.
Everybody doesn’t need to be onboard when the ship leaves port. They only need to be onboard by the time the ship disembarks—whenever and wherever you stipulate the eventual destination. The last church father. The last ecumenical council. Or some later figure. Or some later development.
Of course, the problem with this fallback position is that, as soon as an Orthodox epologist abdicates the Vincentian canon, he instantly forfeits the right to dismiss Evangelical theological due to its theological innovations.
I’m assuming, for the sake of argument, that Evangelical theology is all that innovative. There are Evangelical theologians who dispute this allegation. But I’m skipping over that debate for now since it’s mooted by the Orthodox themselves.
2.On a related note, Perry Robinson likes to trace Evangelical errors, as he views them, back to Platonism or some ancient heresy. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that his superficial parallels are historically sound, that would directly undercut the Orthodox charge that Evangelical theology is false because it’s innovative. For if, ex hypothesi, Evangelical theology is false because it’s derivative of some ancient heresy or ancient heresy, then it can’t very be false because of its novel character.
The net result is that Orthodox epologists are using objections against Evangelicalism which cancel each other out. In that event, we don’t have to defend our Evangelical faith against Orthodox attack. Rather, we can quote on Orthodox epologist against another. Who needs to fire a shot when your opponents are forming a circular firing squad?
By this criterion, Evangelical theology is summarily condemned for its theological innovations. Novel interpretations of Scripture can’t possibly be true. For how could Christians have been so wrong for so long?
At that point, the Orthodox epologist doesn’t even feel the need to open a Bible and see for himself if, say, St. Paul teaches sola fide. For the Orthodox epologist knows, a priori, that no novel interpretation of Paul is even possible.
There are, however, a couple of basic problems with the Vincentian canon:
1.When an Evangelical begins to point out obvious examples of division within the early church, such as the Christological and Trinitarian controversies, iconoclasm, schisms, and variations in the canon, the Orthodox epologist has to put the backpeddle to the metal.
He suddenly abandons the Vincentian canon for the Newmanesque canon. What counts is living tradition. An evolving consensus.
Everybody doesn’t need to be onboard when the ship leaves port. They only need to be onboard by the time the ship disembarks—whenever and wherever you stipulate the eventual destination. The last church father. The last ecumenical council. Or some later figure. Or some later development.
Of course, the problem with this fallback position is that, as soon as an Orthodox epologist abdicates the Vincentian canon, he instantly forfeits the right to dismiss Evangelical theological due to its theological innovations.
I’m assuming, for the sake of argument, that Evangelical theology is all that innovative. There are Evangelical theologians who dispute this allegation. But I’m skipping over that debate for now since it’s mooted by the Orthodox themselves.
2.On a related note, Perry Robinson likes to trace Evangelical errors, as he views them, back to Platonism or some ancient heresy. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that his superficial parallels are historically sound, that would directly undercut the Orthodox charge that Evangelical theology is false because it’s innovative. For if, ex hypothesi, Evangelical theology is false because it’s derivative of some ancient heresy or ancient heresy, then it can’t very be false because of its novel character.
The net result is that Orthodox epologists are using objections against Evangelicalism which cancel each other out. In that event, we don’t have to defend our Evangelical faith against Orthodox attack. Rather, we can quote on Orthodox epologist against another. Who needs to fire a shot when your opponents are forming a circular firing squad?
Effects of Global Warming Worse Than Feared
FALSE HOPE, NY – The effects of global warming are far worse than originally feared, according to a new report released Monday by the University of False Hope. Dr. Phil Raup conducted the research that showed, among other things, that the low temperatures for each day occur an hour later today than they did even as recently as last week.
“Low temperatures in the morning now occur, on average, an entire hour later in the day,” Raup explained. “This means that the day stays warmer for a longer period of time, thus putting our entire polar bear population at risk of falling through melting ice.”
Unlike other climate problems, this one can be unambiguously attributed to President Bush, Raup said. “This is a direct result of President Bush’s policies. If he hadn’t signed certain bills into effect, this aspect of Global Warming would have been delayed for at least three weeks.”
Raup says his research indicates that Global Warming caused a shift in the spacetime continuum early Sunday morning. In essence, an entire hour was deleted from existence. “The only explanation we found that is consistent with all research is that the extreme heat energy created by Global Warming caused a miniature black hole to appear, just for a moment. This black hole was powerful enough to suck time itself into its vortex.”
Raup credits ALGORE, a cyborg designed March 31, 1948 which later took the initiative in creating the internet, with keeping the black hole from causing more widespread damage. “The entire state of Arizona was spared thanks to ALGORE’s quick actions. Other than that, it was pretty much universal.”
“Low temperatures in the morning now occur, on average, an entire hour later in the day,” Raup explained. “This means that the day stays warmer for a longer period of time, thus putting our entire polar bear population at risk of falling through melting ice.”
Unlike other climate problems, this one can be unambiguously attributed to President Bush, Raup said. “This is a direct result of President Bush’s policies. If he hadn’t signed certain bills into effect, this aspect of Global Warming would have been delayed for at least three weeks.”
Raup says his research indicates that Global Warming caused a shift in the spacetime continuum early Sunday morning. In essence, an entire hour was deleted from existence. “The only explanation we found that is consistent with all research is that the extreme heat energy created by Global Warming caused a miniature black hole to appear, just for a moment. This black hole was powerful enough to suck time itself into its vortex.”
Raup credits ALGORE, a cyborg designed March 31, 1948 which later took the initiative in creating the internet, with keeping the black hole from causing more widespread damage. “The entire state of Arizona was spared thanks to ALGORE’s quick actions. Other than that, it was pretty much universal.”
Sunday, March 09, 2008
No true Scotsman
For Arminians and other like-minded Christians who think that a true believer can lose his salvation, Heb 6 is the locus classicus. When a Calvinist counters that an apostate was never really saved in the first place, he’s accused of special pleading.
This rejoinder is proof positive, for the Arminian, that Calvinism is an axiomatic system, with predestination as its first principle, which is immune to existential or exegetical falsification.
At this point the Calvinist is accused of committing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Indeed, I even ran across an exposition of this fallacy which uses Calvinism to illustrate the fallacy:
***QUOTE***
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
Real-World Examples
An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith believe but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.
http://logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html
***END-QUOTE***
Now Ben Witherington, who’s the foremost Arminian exegete of his generation, recently did a lengthy post on Heb 6. Predictably enough, he defended the classic Arminian interpretation—although he had some striking concessions along the way. But his post prompted the following exchange with a commenter:
***QUOTE***
Aleksandra said...
Just to clarify, is the article saying that Christians who reject their faith can never return? I personally know of a case when a person rejected his faith, wanting to live a life style not compatible with the Gospel. This person actually said they reject Jesus. But only a short time later they came back, and now, years later, he is still hungry for the things of God. According to the Hebrews verses, does God take back such a one? Could it be possible for a person to desire Christ, but for God to not truly forgive them? I'm confused.
********************
Ben Witherington said...
Alexlsandra:
This is an excellent question, and it is quite impossible to answer on the basis of what little you have said about this person. But consider these two possibilities: 1) the first go around the person was not in fact a Christian, did not love the Lord with all their heart etc. They were in a state much like the demons described in the Gospels-- who knew very well who Jesus was and did not dispute it, but this truth had not transformed their lives and behavior, as evidence by this person going AWOL. Mental assent to the Gospel is not the same as being saved. The issue is had they trusted and adhered to, and been transformed by and lived on the basis of that truth? 2) the very fact that this person now has a heart for God, and the other things you mentioned, is evidence that they did not commit apostasy in the first place which is a soul destroying act.
Hope this helps.
Ben W.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/02/christian-apostasy-and-hebrews-6.html
***END-QUOTE***
Ironically, Witherington’s explanation is the mirror image of the Reformed interpretation. As a doctrinaire Arminian, Witherington has no problem in saying that a true believer can lose his salvation. His conundrum comes with the possibility, or impossibility (as the case may be) of spiritual restoration. After all, that’s how the apostasy section begins. V4 begins with the word “impossible” (Gr.=adunaton). In Greek syntax, that’s the emphatic position. And it frames the entire discussion.
But if you subscribe to libertarian freewill, then why would it be impossible for an apostate to repent and return to the faith? Isn’t the apostate free to do otherwise? Why, in this life, would it not be possible for an apostate to reverse course?
Indeed, Witherington’s colleague at Asbury, Jerry Walls, who has coauthored a standard defense of Arminian theology, subscribes to postmortem evangelism. If, on libertarian assumptions, it’s possible to be saved even after you die, then why would it not be possible to recant your apostasy here and now? Shouldn’t a free agent be free to think better of his rash and reckless defection from the faith?
So, suddenly, the leading prooftext to overthrow the Reformed doctrine of perseverance generates an acute internal tension for Arminian theology. What was allegedly a pressure point against Calvinism turns against the Arminian disputant with a vengeance.
The Calvinist says an apostate was never saved in the first place. And if someone who fell away returns to the faith, a Calvinist will say that he never really committed apostasy. He was a backslider rather than an apostate.
But when he says that, Arminians accuse him of Scripture-twisting. The Calvinist is obviously in bondage to the ironclad constraints of his rationalistic dogma.
Enter Ben Witherington. Backed into a corner by his own theological precommitments, he is forced to say that if someone who fell away returns to the faith, then either he was never saved in the first place or else he never really committed apostasy.
Heb 6 looked like smooth sailing for the Arminian. Indeed, this was the Arminian flagship or battleship in the Arminian armada. Now, however, the Arminian interpretation has run aground the coral reef of Heb 6, and is taking on water at an alarming rate.
I’d urge the S. S. Calvin to rendezvous with the Arminian shipwreck and rescue as many stranded passengers as possible before they drown under a dilemma of their own making.
This rejoinder is proof positive, for the Arminian, that Calvinism is an axiomatic system, with predestination as its first principle, which is immune to existential or exegetical falsification.
At this point the Calvinist is accused of committing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Indeed, I even ran across an exposition of this fallacy which uses Calvinism to illustrate the fallacy:
***QUOTE***
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
Real-World Examples
An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith believe but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.
http://logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html
***END-QUOTE***
Now Ben Witherington, who’s the foremost Arminian exegete of his generation, recently did a lengthy post on Heb 6. Predictably enough, he defended the classic Arminian interpretation—although he had some striking concessions along the way. But his post prompted the following exchange with a commenter:
***QUOTE***
Aleksandra said...
Just to clarify, is the article saying that Christians who reject their faith can never return? I personally know of a case when a person rejected his faith, wanting to live a life style not compatible with the Gospel. This person actually said they reject Jesus. But only a short time later they came back, and now, years later, he is still hungry for the things of God. According to the Hebrews verses, does God take back such a one? Could it be possible for a person to desire Christ, but for God to not truly forgive them? I'm confused.
********************
Ben Witherington said...
Alexlsandra:
This is an excellent question, and it is quite impossible to answer on the basis of what little you have said about this person. But consider these two possibilities: 1) the first go around the person was not in fact a Christian, did not love the Lord with all their heart etc. They were in a state much like the demons described in the Gospels-- who knew very well who Jesus was and did not dispute it, but this truth had not transformed their lives and behavior, as evidence by this person going AWOL. Mental assent to the Gospel is not the same as being saved. The issue is had they trusted and adhered to, and been transformed by and lived on the basis of that truth? 2) the very fact that this person now has a heart for God, and the other things you mentioned, is evidence that they did not commit apostasy in the first place which is a soul destroying act.
Hope this helps.
Ben W.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/02/christian-apostasy-and-hebrews-6.html
***END-QUOTE***
Ironically, Witherington’s explanation is the mirror image of the Reformed interpretation. As a doctrinaire Arminian, Witherington has no problem in saying that a true believer can lose his salvation. His conundrum comes with the possibility, or impossibility (as the case may be) of spiritual restoration. After all, that’s how the apostasy section begins. V4 begins with the word “impossible” (Gr.=adunaton). In Greek syntax, that’s the emphatic position. And it frames the entire discussion.
But if you subscribe to libertarian freewill, then why would it be impossible for an apostate to repent and return to the faith? Isn’t the apostate free to do otherwise? Why, in this life, would it not be possible for an apostate to reverse course?
Indeed, Witherington’s colleague at Asbury, Jerry Walls, who has coauthored a standard defense of Arminian theology, subscribes to postmortem evangelism. If, on libertarian assumptions, it’s possible to be saved even after you die, then why would it not be possible to recant your apostasy here and now? Shouldn’t a free agent be free to think better of his rash and reckless defection from the faith?
So, suddenly, the leading prooftext to overthrow the Reformed doctrine of perseverance generates an acute internal tension for Arminian theology. What was allegedly a pressure point against Calvinism turns against the Arminian disputant with a vengeance.
The Calvinist says an apostate was never saved in the first place. And if someone who fell away returns to the faith, a Calvinist will say that he never really committed apostasy. He was a backslider rather than an apostate.
But when he says that, Arminians accuse him of Scripture-twisting. The Calvinist is obviously in bondage to the ironclad constraints of his rationalistic dogma.
Enter Ben Witherington. Backed into a corner by his own theological precommitments, he is forced to say that if someone who fell away returns to the faith, then either he was never saved in the first place or else he never really committed apostasy.
Heb 6 looked like smooth sailing for the Arminian. Indeed, this was the Arminian flagship or battleship in the Arminian armada. Now, however, the Arminian interpretation has run aground the coral reef of Heb 6, and is taking on water at an alarming rate.
I’d urge the S. S. Calvin to rendezvous with the Arminian shipwreck and rescue as many stranded passengers as possible before they drown under a dilemma of their own making.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)