Pages

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Fuzz-brain

david waltz said...

Now, I do believe that it reflects Steve thoughts on post-apostolic hermeneutics (and yours), and say this because of his firm emphasis on what he terms “the grammatico-historical method”, and the fact that to date in our dialogue he has proposed no other valid hermeneutic. And further, since I sense that you and Steve hold similar views on this issue, I also gave some weight to your response to the question I posed to Steve (“And the primary hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles was?”), for Steve did not directly respond to it, but rather, recommended a book. So right or wrong, that helped to form my assessment.

If Steve does not believe that GMH is THE hermeneutical principle by which one is to approach the Scriptures, but rather, that it is the Apostles hermeneutical principle which should take precedence, then he (and you) sure have a funny way of saying so.

Yes you have, and so has Steve by relegating GMH above the apostles hermeneutic; my-oh-my, what am I missing here…

Really? You (nor Steve) have directly answered my questions concerning your governing hermeneutic method and that of the apostles—specifically, once again (man this is getting old) does the hermeneutic method of the apostles establish a governing method for your (or Steve’s) hermeneutic? If it does not then I stand by my charge of irrelevancy…if not, I submit you (nor Steve) have not said so in the past—i.e. your charge “you lied” is pure sophistry.

Neither you, nor Steve, have given me cause to change my original assessment, for you both continue to avoid answering my question directly; here it is again: is Apostolic exegesis/hermeneutic your governing principle in your approach to interpreting the Scriptures? [If it is not, and you embrace GMH instead, then the Apostles hermeneutic is “irrelevant” to your prime governing principle (and by irrelevant, I mean as a presupposition—but, I sense you already knew this)].

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/08/apostolic-hermeneutic.html

Several more problems:

1.On the one hand, Waltz says I espouse the grammatico-historical method. On the other hand, Waltz says I haven’t stated my governing hermeneutical method.

Of course, this is incoherent. If I espouse the grammatico-historical method, then that is my governing hermeneutical method. Waltz both attributes a hermeutical position to me while simultaneously denying that he knows what my hermeneutical position is.

And if he doesn’t know my governing hermeneutic, then he’s in no position to put words in my mouth.

2.He then indulges in fallacious reasoning. Let’s recast his accusation in syllogistic terms:

a) Steve espouses the grammatico-historical method
b) The grammatical-historical method is contrary to apostolic exegesis
c) Ergo: Steve thinks the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant

Now, the major premise is correct. The problem begins with the minor premise. Waltz is imputing his own evaluation of the grammatico-historical method to me. Waltz is the one who drives a wedge between apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis, not me.

I don’t share his evaluation, and I’ve said nothing to indicate that I share his evaluation. Indeed, I’ve indicated that I do not share his evaluation.

As a result, the conclusion is false since his conclusion derives from a false premise. He imputes his own position to me (in the minor premise)—a position I repudiate.

As I said before, someone that lacking in critical detachment is incompetent to attack my position.

3.Waltz justifies his own position by referring the reader to an article by Peter Enns. An article posted at Peter Enns’ own blog.

But this raises another question: how could you spend any amount of time at Enns’ blog and be unaware of the fact that there is another side to the argument? The raison d’etre of his blog is to respond to his critics.

Indeed, you’d have to be Rip Van Winkle to be unaware of the firestorm which Peter Enns ignited. Negatives reviews by Beale, Carson, Currid, Frame, &c. A book edited by Beale and Carson in response to Enns et al. Another book by Beale, due out this Fall, in response to Enns et al. The fact that he was terminated by his employer (WTS).

4.That’s why I referred Waltz to a book in answer to his question. If he’s a genuine seeker of the truth, then he’s duty-bound to acquaint himself with both sides of the argument.

5.I’ve already posted on the relation between apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/grammatico-historical-exegesis.html

6.BTW, I didn’t “distance” myself from Calvin’s view of private judgment. Rather, I took no position on that question one way or the other. I’m not going to get sidetracked into exegeting Calvin, then comparing my view with his view. That framework is irrelevant to my post.

14 comments:

  1. If I espouse the grammatico-historical method, then that is my governing hermeneutical method.

    Response:
    Actually, a person can espouse the GHM without it being his governing hermneutical method. Maybe it is secondary to another method.

    ReplyDelete
  2. APOLONIO SAID:

    “Response:_Actually, a person can espouse the GHM without it being his governing hermneutical method. Maybe it is secondary to another method.”

    And what method should I apply to your response? Should I construe your statement literally? Or should I construe your statement allegorically?

    Perhaps I should apply the Quadriga to your response: literal, tropological, allegorical, and anagogical.

    ReplyDelete
  3. steve,

    You're the one who made the statement "If I espouse the grammatico-historical method, then that is my governing hermneutical method." There is some kind of entailment at work there and I just pointed out that it's wrong. It's at least possible that a person can espouse GHM and have...etc...you know how it goes. Your reasoning there was just horrible. That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Apolonio,

    What are you talking about? Let's say that you have a governing hermeneutical method and you announce your governing hermeneutical method.

    And then someone comes along and says that you're professed governing hermeneutical method is perhaps secondary to another method.

    Then what do you say?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello Steve,

    Fuzz-brain here…you posted:

    >> 1.On the one hand, Waltz says I espouse the grammatico-historical method. On the other hand, Waltz says I haven’t stated my governing hermeneutical method.>>

    Me: Not accurate; note what I said (and what you quoted in your post):

    >> You (nor Steve) have directly answered my questions concerning your governing hermeneutic method and that of the apostles—specifically, once again (man this is getting old) does the hermeneutic method of the apostles establish a governing method for your (or Steve’s) hermeneutic?>>

    Yes, I stated that you embrace GMH, but I then asked: does the hermeneutic method of the apostles establish a governing method for your hermeneutic? If it does, you have yet to explain to me how; and if it does not, then I submit that my charge or irrelevancy stands. One can claim relevancy all day long, but the claim is an empty one when no support is given—right?


    Grace and peace,

    Fuzz-brain, I mean “Michael”, oops…David

    ReplyDelete
  6. POLONIO SAID:

    "You're the one who made the statement 'If I espouse the grammatico-historical method, then that is my governing hermneutical method.' There is some kind of entailment at work there and I just pointed out that it's wrong. It's at least possible that a person can espouse GHM and have...etc...you know how it goes. Your reasoning there was just horrible. That's all."

    Is there still some kind of entailment at work here if you interpret my statement allegorically or anagogically? If GHM is merely "secondary," then where does "entailment" come in?

    ReplyDelete
  7. my charge or irrelevancy stands.

    A THIRD lie to cover up the first one, David.

    You've moved from saying that what Steve actually said was that the herm. of the Apostles is irrelevant to it being a dramatic move to now it being a "charge."

    Tell us, David, do you even make an attempt to keep track of what you say, or do you just make it up as you go along?

    1. You haven't shown, yet, that the hermeneutic of the Apostles is at odds with the GHM.

    2. You haven't interacted with responses to Enns (to which Steve and I both pointed you, thereby answering your "charge.")

    3. And you haven't interacted with the archives of this blog on this very subject.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One more quick note for David,

    When we point you in particular to a book in answer, David, we assume we are answering you on your own grounds. Your profile says you are a bibliophile. Ergo, we assume that pointing you to books (particularly ones you should be aware of) answer you, since you're the one who brags about his library.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gene,

    You posted:

    >>A THIRD lie to cover up the first one, David.

    You've moved from saying that what Steve actually said was that the herm. of the Apostles is irrelevant to it being a dramatic move to now it being a "charge.">>

    Me: My-oh-my, you get to tell me what I meant, what Steve meant, and then get to use YOUR resultant interpretation as “proof”; but, when I attempt to do the same I am “lying”—how can you expect me to take you seriously with such double standards in play…

    Once more, I never said that my assessment of Steve’s “answer” was “actually” what he said—you are now “lying”.

    >>Tell us, David, do you even make an attempt to keep track of what you say, or do you just make it up as you go along?>>

    Me: I remember what I say, but not always your interpretation/s of what I say.


    Fuzz-brain

    ReplyDelete
  10. Once more, I never said that my assessment of Steve’s “answer” was “actually” what he said—you are now “lying”.

    Sure you did. Now you're trying to cover it up.

    Like I stated to you on your blog, David, I'm only following what you have said yourself:

    You began with:

    "I then posed a question: was this the hermeneutic of Jesus and His apostles? His answer: the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant. I kid you not…"

    Then, when confronted, you said that was a conclusion based upon reflection...

    In other words, you added a caveat not in your original. In your original statement, you stated "His answer: the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant."

    Now, we've moved from a reflection to a "charge."

    You keep building in these face-saving distinctions not in the original .

    , when I attempt to do the same I am “lying”—how can you expect me to take you seriously with such double standards in play…

    There is no double standard here at all. I've merely followed your own words. I've not imputed assumptions that I hold myself to your position - which is precisely what you did with Steve (and me). These aren't even convertible.

    What's more, this is a diversionary tactic on your part to avoid answering Steve and me any further.

    Are you NOT driving a wedge between apostolic exegesis and the GHM? If not, why cite Enns in your favor, when that is precisely what he does himself?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello Steve,

    Thanks for taking the time to respond; you posted:

    Steve:>> 2.He then indulges in fallacious reasoning. Let’s recast his accusation in syllogistic terms:

    a) Steve espouses the grammatico-historical method
    b) The grammatical-historical method is contrary to apostolic exegesis
    c) Ergo: Steve thinks the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant


    I don’t share his evaluation, and I’ve said nothing to indicate that I share his evaluation. Indeed, I’ve indicated that I do not share his evaluation.>>

    Me: If the abvoe syllogism was going through my mind when I said: His answer: the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant., then I am in total agreement with your assessment. However, the above syllogism was NOT on my mind (actually, my fuzzy-brain was not thinking in terms of a syllogism at that moment); but, if I were to frame my thoughts on the matter into a syllogism it would be as follows:

    a) Steve’s governing hermeneutic when approaching the Scriptures is the GHM
    b) The GHM was not the governing hermeneutic used by Jesus and His apostles.
    c) Ergo: By using a different governing hermeneutic than Jesus and His apostles Steve has [in essence] demoted the governing hermeneutic of Jesus and His apostles to a position of irrelevancy [pragmatically speaking].


    Now, I really want to get back the issue of “private judment” sometime soon, but feel compelled to address Gene’s charge of “lying”.


    Oh, and BTW, I have never been to Peter Enns’ blog; I subscribe to the WTJ, and thought of his essay when the issue of hermeneutics came up. Being a bit lazy, not wanting to spend the time typing quotations from my hard-copy, I Googled the essay, and the pdf version came up (which is the link I provided on my blog). Will try to get to the rebuttals of his essay soon, but my-oh-my most of my “free” time is being taking up dealing with Gene’s accusations.


    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  12. DAVID WALTZ SAID:

    “Yes, I stated that you embrace GMH, but I then asked: does the hermeneutic method of the apostles establish a governing method for your hermeneutic? If it does, you have yet to explain to me how.”

    No, *I* don’t have to explain how. I don’t have to reinvent the wheel. *You’re* the one who’s driving a wedge between apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis, not me.

    That such a hiatus is illusory has been argued by numerous evangelical scholars, viz.

    http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/three-books-on-the-bible-a-critical-review.php

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/februaryweb-only/106-52.0.html

    http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/TH.Pratt.Historical_Contingencies.pdf

    “And if it does not, then I submit that my charge or irrelevancy stands. One can claim relevancy all day long, but the claim is an empty one when no support is given—right?”

    Wrong. When you level an accusation, the accuser assumes the burden of proof, not the accused. Your charge is fallacious on two grounds:

    i) *You’re* the one who’s assuming that apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis are at odds. The onus lies on you to support *your* assumption.

    ii) On the basis of *your* assumption, you are then imputing *your* evaluation of the grammatico-historical method to me as if I share your evaluation. The onus lies on you to support that imputation as well.

    As far as (i) is concerned, all you did was to cite a single article by Enns, while disregarding the counterarguments offered by his numerous critics.

    You left the misleading impression that evangelical scholars in generally share your view of the alleged disconnect between apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis. That is demonstrably false. And (ii) is demonstrably false as well.

    There is no presumption which I must overcome. To say so begs the question.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "*You’re* the one who’s assuming that apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis are at odds. The onus lies on you to support *your* assumption."


    You can’t, for example, legitimize every instance of OT typology as Messianic Prophecy by strict application of the GHM. You need NT confirmation. Otherwise, how do you know you aren’t just seeing parallels where none are intended?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "You can’t, for example, legitimize every instance of OT typology as Messianic Prophecy by strict application of the GHM."

    Every instance of typology found in the NT is clearly established by the Latter Prophets.

    For instance, the typology of the animal sacrifices found in Leviticus is found in Isaiah 53 which uses the exact language of Lev.

    The one who reads the OT the first time around may not make all the connections, but they are certainly there. This is no problem for the GHM.

    ReplyDelete