Monday, February 27, 2012
Presidential apologies
Barack Obama has been criticized lately for apologizing to Muslims in the Koran-burning incident. but one major objection I have that I haven't seen leveled yet is this: When a Commander-in-Chief puts our soldiers in harm's way, when he sends many of them to their death, when many return home horribly maimed, the very least they should expect from him is that he will back them up. Instead, Obama apologizes for them. Shames them. He puts them in danger, then leaves them with a knife sticking in their back. A mark of true leadership is to never demand more loyalty from others than you show to others.
Priest boycotts funeral
I’m going to make a few remarks about this:
i) Given the writer’s slant, this may well be a very misleading or incomplete version of events.
ii) I’m not going to comment on the writer’s ignorant, atrocious theology.
iii) It’s always amusing when leftwing extremists accuse the other side of political extremism. Amusing that they are blind as bats to their own extremism.
iv) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this account is reasonably accurate, the priest might be faulted for tactlessness. He was right on the merits, but this was the wrong occasion to be confrontational. (Cue: Job’s comforters.)
v) But even assuming the accuracy of the account (and I doubt how reliable it is), the daughter put the priest in a very awkward situation. Having provoked the incident, she didn’t leave the priest with any ideal options. Whatever he did was going to have downsides. He’s not responsible for the predicament she put him in.
vi) I also don’t know the content of her eulogy. If she exploited the captive audience to plug her LGBT agenda, then it’s understandable if he registered his protest by absenting himself from the propaganda. I don’t know that that’s what happened, but then, I doubt this account tells the whole story.
vii) The separation of church/state objection is preposterous. Apparently, this was a Catholic funeral, performed by a Catholic priest, in a Catholic church (or possibly the chapel of a funeral home). Even if we grant separation of church and state, a priest, performing a religious funeral, is hardly trespassing the (mythical) wall of separation when he conducts the service according to the policies of his denomination. For this event is taking place within a religious arena, within a religious context.
A Dispensationalist on Dispensationalism
I do not accept the notion that the differences between dispensationalisms, let alone between dispensationalism and non-dispensational systems, are mainly due to disparate hermeneutical theories. Consistent “literal” hermeneutics has never been the sole domain of dispensationalists. Differences in exegetical conclusions are not primarily due to competing hermeneutical methods but due to our individual applications of a common methodology, different views on the complex matter of biblical intertextuality, the subtle yet real influence of our presuppositions, the uneven rigor of our efforts, and our common human foibles and finiteness.
Matthew's Two Gospels
I recently listened to a discussion of the authorship of the gospels, by Timothy McGrew, that Brian Auten linked earlier this month. McGrew makes a lot of good points, but he isn't attempting to be exhaustive. For those who are interested in more of the external evidence for the authorship of the gospels, including multiple sources from the mid second century and earlier who weren't mentioned by McGrew, here's a series I did on the subject a few years ago. And here's an index of Triablogue posts on Biblical authorship in general, including more material on the gospels.
McGrew's discussion is particularly good on the gospel of Matthew. He mentions some of the contexts in which Matthew might have written and why he might have used material from Mark's gospel. I want to expand on some of his comments here.
McGrew's discussion is particularly good on the gospel of Matthew. He mentions some of the contexts in which Matthew might have written and why he might have used material from Mark's gospel. I want to expand on some of his comments here.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
More About First-Century Manuscripts
You can watch the recent debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace, in which Wallace mentioned the first-century Mark fragment, here. Start watching at minutes 13 and 48 of the second hour. Notice that Wallace says, in the second segment I just referenced, that the first-century dating has also been attested by "others", not just the one scholar in question.
Regarding the alleged photograph of the Mark fragment posted at D.M. Murdock's site, here's a Yahoo list where Daniel Wallace and other individuals comment on it. The consensus seems to be that the photograph is unlikely to be authentic.
Ben Witherington has made some comments about multiple first-century New Testament manuscripts, not just the Mark fragment that's been discussed so much. He refers to "evidence of a first century copy of a NT text", which could be taken as referring to something other than a first-century manuscript. It could be something else that suggests the existence of such a manuscript rather than the manuscript itself. His comments are somewhat unclear, but here's what he said:
Regarding the alleged photograph of the Mark fragment posted at D.M. Murdock's site, here's a Yahoo list where Daniel Wallace and other individuals comment on it. The consensus seems to be that the photograph is unlikely to be authentic.
Ben Witherington has made some comments about multiple first-century New Testament manuscripts, not just the Mark fragment that's been discussed so much. He refers to "evidence of a first century copy of a NT text", which could be taken as referring to something other than a first-century manuscript. It could be something else that suggests the existence of such a manuscript rather than the manuscript itself. His comments are somewhat unclear, but here's what he said:
The brief lecture by Scott Carroll at GCTS Charlotte last Friday night highlighted some of the most exciting aspects of the Green Collection. It is possible that a very early copy of the Gospel of Mark in Greek, possibly the very earliest is a part of this collection. An epigrapher from Oxford has already prepared to say that it is a first century copy! While I doubt this, and various eyes will need to go over the manuscript before any firm conclusion can be drawn, even if it were from the second-third century it would still be the earliest evidence of this size (it does not include the whole Gospel, sadly it does not include Mark 16) that we have....
One interesting point made by Carroll was that there is evidence of a first century copy of a NT text in codex form, whereas various scholars thought Christians probably didn’t use this practice before the second century....
Yes apparently there is more in this mss [of Mark than there is in P45] and no I am not talking about the Mark mss iun the comment about the codex.
Biola, evolution, and Craig
I’m wondering if Craig’s apparent position on evolution isn’t at variance with Biola’s doctrinal statement.
Man was created in the image of God, after His likeness, but the whole human race fell in the fall of the first Adam.
Explanatory Note:
This doctrinal statement, presented here as originally conceived by the founders of the organization, has been and continues to be the stated theological position of Biola University.
Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.
As an anthropological dualist who thinks that human beings are body/soul composites, I think that a hominid animal, however advanced, which lacks a human soul is not a human being. So it really doesn’t matter whether or not there was a sharp dividing line biologically between pre-human hominids and human beings. In any case, anthropologists to my knowledge have not been able to come to any sort of consensus on the tree of human ancestry, so that all the hominids you mention may simply be dead ends on the tree of primate evolution which never led to man. Were Neanderthals truly human? God knows! I don’t need to know exactly when humans emerged in the evolutionary process in order to maintain that in God’s providence a first human being did arrive on the scene.
The Matthean Virgin Birth
It is sometimes asserted that Mary’s miraculous conception is little more than a reflection of popular ideas and myths about gods impregnating mortal women…It is not likely, however, that early Jewish Christians, including the evangelist Matthew, would present Jesus in pagan garb. Jewish teachers were highly critical of pagan morals and myths. The idea of gods and goddesses having sexual relations with mortals was repugnant. To compare, even if only implicitly, the God of Abraham to a pagan deity like Zeus and to imagine him as somehow impregnating Mary would have been viewed as idolatrous and quite scandalous. Moreover, there was no expectation of a virgin birth in Jewish messianism.
No, it is much more likely that Mary’s miraculous conception would have been understood very much in terms of the powerful working of God’s Spirit, as seen in every conception (as in Philo), and especially seen in the examples in the Old Testament in which elderly or otherwise barren women conceive. Mary’s virginal conception tops them all, for her child is none other than Israel’s awaited Messiah and God’s Son.
C. A. Evans, Matthew (Cambridge 2012), 41-42.
Hermeneutic of suspicion
I’m going to selectively comment on these two posts:
It reflects an inability to believe that Steve procures his view of OT typology without any regard to his interpretation of the NT. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying he is lying. We are both presuppositionalists and we both know that when confronted on some central issues we have reasons which we hide from ourselves for believing what we say we believe. I have admitted my presuppositions. Steve is less forthcoming. But anyone who has even a little familiarity with the writings of covenant theology or Bible typology knows that you cannot keep the NT out of it.
Like Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, Henebury operates with a hermeneutic of suspicion. No matter how carefully I explain myself or distinguish my argument from other arguments, Henebury can’t shake the deep-seated suspicion that I must have an ulterior motive, a hidden agenda. My stated reasons couldn't possibly be my real reasons. It’s Kafkaesque.
Although, by his own admission, dialoguing with Henebury is futile, our exchange my still benefit onlookers.
It comes from the title of chapter 5 of G. K. Beale’s The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism.
A Specific Problem Confronting the Authority of the Bible: Should the New Testament’s Claim That the Prophet Isaiah Wrote the Whole Book of Isaiah Be Taken at Face Value?
I feel like saying,” I don’t know. What do you mean by ‘face value?’”
Greg Beale, in his A New Testament Biblical Theology speaks of “literal fecundity” (97), and of “literal expectation” (155). For more examples see 113,150-151. He also speaks of “the NT transformation of the OT storyline” (16).
Henebury can’t be serious. One of Beale’s primary interests is how the OT is fulfilled in the NT. He’s devoted years to refining a highly nuanced explanation. Consider just a few of his many writings on the subject:
Hidden But Now Revealed: a Biblical Theology of Divine Mystery; co-authored with Ben Gladd (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, forthcoming).
“Christ and the Church as the Emerging Eschatological Temple: James Testimony in Acts 15.” In Christ, Salvation, and the Eschaton, Essays in Honor of Hans K. LaRondelle, 349-366. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2009.
“Did Jesus and the Apostles Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Revisiting the Debate Seventeen Years Later in the Light of Peter Enns’ Book, Inspiration and Incarnation,” Themelios 32 (2006), 18-43.
“The Use of Old Testament Prophecy in the New: ‘Literal’ Fulfillment, Allegory or Metaphor? A Case Study of
the Temple.” Presidential address at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 17-19, 2004.
“Questions of Authorial Intent, Epistemology, and Presuppositions and Their Bearing on the Study of the Old Testament in the New: a Rejoinder to Steve Moyise,” Irish Biblical Studies 21 (1999), pp. 1-26.
"Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of the Apostles' Exegetical Method," Themelios 14 (1989), 89-96.
Vern Poythress assumes a plain-sense when writing about the 8th Commandment in his paper on “Contracts and the Destructive Effects of Unfaithfulness” (6) when he writes,
So the eighth commandment comes in a context where God’s will defines its scope and purpose. We do not have the right to re-interpret and re-define it according to our own selfish desires.
Poythress’s whole argument rests on the assumption that the plain-sense of Scripture is known.
With all due respect, it’s simply ridiculous for Henebury to attribute a “plain-sense” hermeneutic to Poythress. For starters, just consider his critique of dispensational hermeneutics in his book Understanding Dispensationalists
Steve’s advocacy of types and tokens comes from the recent work of scholars delving into semiotics and philosophical hermeneutics. To think the biblical authors had these things in mind, and that they supposed they could be easily picked up by their readers stretches credulity.
i) This reflects a misconception of philosophy on Henebury’s part. Much of philosophy (and semiotics) is devoted to analyzing our preanalytical beliefs and practices. It doesn’t assume that people must be conscious of these distinctions to subconsciously deploy with these distinctions. Henebury fails to distinguish between theoretical and pretheoretical knowledge or belief. But there’s such a thing as tacit knowledge.
ii) In addition, Bible writers and readers could certain pick up on type/token relations. They don’t have to use the technical terminology to be acquainted with stock characters, stock plot motifs, type-scenes, and emblematic geography, viz., garden, mountain, valley, river, desert.
iii) Likewise, there’s nothing terribly recondite about distinguishing between Venus in the East at daybreak and Venus in the West at night. It’s the same star (referent), yet “morning star” is not synonymous with “evening star.” Different names to distinguish different vantage points.
Space prohibits saying much more on this. I recommend a close reading of D. Moo’s essay “The Problem of Sensus Plenior” in the Carson and Woodbridge book, Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon for those who wish to see something close to my position (esp. 195-198, although noting that Moo falls foul of Sailhamer’s critique of the usual promise-fulfillment schema).
Since I set my own position in explicit contrast to the sensus plenior, how’s that relevant?
In addition, does Henebury endorse Moo’s section on typology?
I shall content myself with a quote:
Second, we observe in Scripture itself that typological understanding never creates new revelatory data. It only underscores, illustrates, and amplifies what has already been stated clearly. In other words: typological understanding enriches but does not replace a previous understanding of revelation. It is checked by philological-grammatical understanding. – Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, 87.
For Maier, proposed types must wait their turn till the exegetical understanding is in hand.
This fails to distinguish between words and events:
Prayer And Apologetics
Last year, I wrote a post about supporting apologetics ministries, and Steve Hays followed up with another post on the subject. In light of the unfolding story about some recent manuscript discoveries, I want to raise a related issue.
How much do you pray about matters pertaining to apologetics? Do you pray for people like Daniel Wallace and the work they're doing? Do you pray that new discoveries will be made? That people will be raised up to work in fields that have been neglected? Do you pray about your own involvement in apologetics? Your church's? Do you pray for your spouse, children, friends, and other people concerning apologetic issues? We often pray for missionaries, pastors, and others who are working in other contexts, and we even regularly set aside time to pray for them. What are you doing in the context of apologetics?
How much do you pray about matters pertaining to apologetics? Do you pray for people like Daniel Wallace and the work they're doing? Do you pray that new discoveries will be made? That people will be raised up to work in fields that have been neglected? Do you pray about your own involvement in apologetics? Your church's? Do you pray for your spouse, children, friends, and other people concerning apologetic issues? We often pray for missionaries, pastors, and others who are working in other contexts, and we even regularly set aside time to pray for them. What are you doing in the context of apologetics?
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Birth Control, Bishops and Religious Authority
Here's a striking intramural debate within Catholicism (Gutting is a philosophy prof. at Notre Dame):
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/birth-control-and-the-challenge-to-divine-authority/?pagemode=print
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/birth-control-and-the-challenge-to-divine-authority/?pagemode=print
Banadam and Eve
L'Osservatore Romano
22 February 2012
Today, at a news conference, Pope Benedict XVI issued The Chiquita Declaration. The Chiquita Declaration was drafted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Archbishop Rowman Williams immediately hailed The Chiquita Declaration as a “milestone in the rapprochement between science and theology.”
Ever since comparative genomics revealed the fact that man shares over half his DNA with bananas, there has been increasing pressure to reexamine and revise the traditional dogma of historic Adam.
Peter Enns recently published The Evolution of Banadam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins, while Tremper Longman published Science, Bananas and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins.
As both scholars document, “Israel” is a corporate Banadam, while Gen 2 is just the backstory to Israel. Israel is Banadam.
As Francis Collins explained in a recent interview, “Science has traced our common ancestry back to Mitochondrial Eve and chromosomal Banadam. At some point in human evolution a banana mated with a hominid.”
He admitted that scientists hadn’t achieved consensus on the identity of the hominid.
“The two leading candidates are Australopithecus and Homo erectus,” he said.
In a recent interview with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury tried to reassure troubled Christians that this scientific and theological development was not a threat to the Christian faith.
“As long as God infused the banana with a human soul before the banana mated with Australopithecus or Homo erectus, the physical derivation of Banadam’s body is of no theological consequence,” he explained.
The selection from the reported first century fragment of the Gospel of Mark
Another
writer has compiled an image of the new fragment
from the Gospel of Mark along side the text from the
Codex Sinaiticus:
Here is how
these passages (Mk 5:15-18) line up in the Codex
Sinaiticus:
καιηρχοντοπροϲ
τονινκαιθεωρου
ϲιτονδαιμονιζο
μενονκαθημε
νονϊματιϲμενο
καιϲωφρονουν
τατονεϲχηκοτα
τονλεγιωνακαιε
φοβηθηϲαν
καιδιηγηϲαντο
αυτοιϲοιϊδοντεϲ
πωϲεγενετοτω
δαιμονιζομενω
καιπεριτωνχοι
ρωνκαιηρξαντο
παρακαλιναυτο
απελθιναποτω
οριωναυτων
καιεμβαινοντοϲ
αυτουειϲτοπλοιο
παρεκαλειαυτο
Another Reflection Of Our False Priorities
Hugh Hewitt had a good interview with Daniel Wallace on his radio program Thursday, concerning the recent New Testament manuscript discoveries. A lot of significant issues were discussed, and I won't get into all of them here. For example, Wallace mentions that one of the fragments discovered is from a homily on Hebrews, which has implications for how the book was viewed early on.
What I want to focus on here, though, is something Wallace said about media coverage of these manuscripts. First, let me set this up with one of Hewitt's questions and Wallace's answer:
And here's what Wallace said later:
Wallace mentions that interest has "gone viral" and is "global", but how much and among what sources?
Imagine how much more the media would be going after this story if it were about, say, movies, sports, or politics. Think of the coverage received by Michael Jackson's death, the Super Bowl, a hurricane in Florida, etc. And it's not just the media. The general public doesn't have much interest in subjects like what Hewitt and Wallace discussed, and they don't know much about the issues involved. What a pathetic reflection on our society.
What I want to focus on here, though, is something Wallace said about media coverage of these manuscripts. First, let me set this up with one of Hewitt's questions and Wallace's answer:
HH: Wow. Now in terms of, for the lay audience, Professor Daniel Wallace, the significance of this work when it appears, how would you grade it, with an A being a Dead Sea Scroll sort of significance, and you know, flunking, it just doesn’t matter?
DW: I would grade it at least an A, maybe an A+.
And here's what Wallace said later:
At first, I thought well, gee, this news is going to get out. But there wasn’t much of a reaction after the first day or two. But it’s interesting to see that the interest in this, it has gone viral. It’s gone global. But what’s fascinating is you’re one of the few people that’s actually contacted me about it.
Wallace mentions that interest has "gone viral" and is "global", but how much and among what sources?
Imagine how much more the media would be going after this story if it were about, say, movies, sports, or politics. Think of the coverage received by Michael Jackson's death, the Super Bowl, a hurricane in Florida, etc. And it's not just the media. The general public doesn't have much interest in subjects like what Hewitt and Wallace discussed, and they don't know much about the issues involved. What a pathetic reflection on our society.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Signs of the times
i) Debates between dispensationalists and covenant theologians tend to focus on texts. What makes a text meaningful? How does a text refer to future events? How is a promise or prophecy fulfilled?
Does meaning evolve? Does meaning change? Does an ancient oracle have a deeper, hidden meaning? Do NT writers discover more in their Messianic prooftexts than is really there to be found?
Is authorial intent the locus of meaning? If so, is the divine author or the human author the locus of meaning?
And what about the audience? Which audience? The original audience? The church?
ii) These are valid questions, but myopic focus on these questions is apt to overlook something equally important. For in the Biblical worldview, meaning and fulfillment aren’t confined to words and sentences. They can also apply to people, places, and events. Meaningful events as well as meaningful texts.
iii) For instance, in John’s Gospel Jesus multiplies the loaves and fish. He does this, in part, because the crowd is hungry, so he feeds them.
But he also does this to illustrate something about his person and work: he is the bread of life, the manna from heaven. It’s not coincidental that the miraculous multiplication of loaves and fish precede the Bread of Life discourse.
Likewise, he heals a blind man. This is, in part, an act of mercy. But he also does this to illustrate something about himself: he is the light of the world.
In both cases, the event carries a metaphorical significance. The event is a sign. An object lesson.
iv) It is, of course, possible to have a textual interpretation of the event. But the event isn’t a pure cipher. The event is independently significant. In part because it’s a very natural, transparent metaphor for what it illustrates. In part because God intended the event to be illustrative.
v) Let’s take a different example: Obed. Is that name significant?
a) Well, considered in isolation, Obed is just a guy who died about 3000 years ago. At that level his name is no more significant than names in the 1920 edition of the NYC phonebook.
b) But what about this: “Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David” (Ruth 4:22).
In this context, Obed suddenly acquires an unforeseen circumstance. If you just knew him as a boy, you wouldn’t think there was anything special about Obed. But when he becomes the grandfather of David, he suddenly takes on new significance. He becomes significant in relation to his grandson. Because David is so important in Bible history, the fact that Obed is David’s ancestor makes Obed retroactively significant.
c) And what about this:
“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham…and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king” (Mt 1:1,5-6).
Here Obed takes on a far greater significance. Not only is he a link in David’s genealogy, but a link in Jesus’ genealogy.
It’s only in retrospect that we can appreciate the full significance of Obed. For that’s constituted by a series of historical developments.
The problem of answered prayer
Is unanswered prayer a problem?
i) To begin with, it isn’t even possible for God to answer all our prayers. And that’s because two people (or even the same individual at different times) can pray contradictory prayers. Two grandsons may pray for their ailing grandmother. One grandson prays that God will heal her while another grandson prays that God will take her. The first grandson prays that God will heal her because he will miss his grandmother if she dies. But the other grandson prays that God will take her becauses he thinks she will be better off to put this life behind her and be with God.
These are mutually exclusive prayers. Answering one cancels out another.
ii) In addition, who lives and who dies generates different future timelines. Say two teenage boys (let’s call them Jim and Tim) suffer life-threatening injuries in a traffic accident.
Both boys have a crush on Jessica. If Tim survives but Jim dies, Jessica will marry Tim. If Jim survives but Tim dies, Jessica will marry Jim. If both die, Jessica will marry John.
If both survive, Jessica will marry Tim while Jim will marry Jane. Each scenario will have a ripple effect down the line. Who lives and who dies will impact other lives down the line. The law of unintended consequences.
iii) Likewise, stopping to have a conversation with someone has a ripple effect. For that slows something down. If you didn’t stop to have that conversation, you and she would get to wherever you two were going a little sooner. And slowing things down has a ripple effect. It affects the timing of other events. One thing can only happen if something else happens at the right time. Like a tightly coordinated subway schedule. If a train is running late, that triggers a chain-reaction.
So God may not answer someone’s prayer because each answered or unanswered prayer generates an alternate future. And God prefers one future over another. (Indeed, God decrees one future rather than another.)
iv) But let’s bracket the issue of incompossible prayers. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that God answered every prayer. Suppose he was both able and willing to do that. Would infidels credit universally answered prayer as evidence for God’s?
According to infidels, God doesn’t answer any prayer unless he answers every prayer. They accuse Christians of sampling bias. We only count the hits, and discount the misses.
So suppose we always got what we asked for? Would infidels admit that was evidence for God’s existence?
I think not. If prayer operated with law-like uniformity, if it mimicked a cause/effect relationship, like a chemical reaction, wouldn’t infidels take that as evidence, not that God was answering our prayers, but that we had the mysterious natural ability to cause the outcome?
They’d say this only goes to show that humans have natural psychokinetic powers. It’s now a question of discovering the hidden mechanism.
To say “Goddidit” is a cop-out or science-stopper. There must be some natural explanation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)