tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6119911679824142856..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Bible as autobiographyRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59733243571130452382010-01-06T16:13:31.951-05:002010-01-06T16:13:31.951-05:00Steve-
I am reading through the NT this year acco...Steve-<br /><br />I am reading through the NT this year according to Ellis's 4 mission scheme, and I was wondering:<br /><br />How convincing do you find Ellis' arguments for Hebrews as part of the Pauline mission? I thought they were quite thin, and that Hebrews fit better with the Jacobean mission.<br /><br />Where do you think Hebrews fits into the 4 mission scheme?That Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07162754517163251874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39458319826198847002009-11-09T13:33:51.534-05:002009-11-09T13:33:51.534-05:00Arduous, methodical and comprehensive, ug!
One go...Arduous, methodical and comprehensive, ug!<br /><br />One good thing, though, is we have Our God Who will guide us through the reading of His Words!<br /><br />It is interesting to read just how some got their angle on what goes before what.<br /><br />I like what Beale wrote here:::><br /><br />"....“The ordering of books can be classified according to a number of principles. These principles need not be mutually exclusive but one may reinforce another, and there may be more than one possible principle reflected in a particular order. Unless stated by the author or editor, it is left to the reader to surmise what rationale is at work in the ordering of the literary blocks that make up a larger whole....".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43050654125410508822009-11-09T11:52:13.749-05:002009-11-09T11:52:13.749-05:00In Catholicism, the internal evidence is irrelevan...<i>In Catholicism, the internal evidence is irrelevant, for what ultimately counts in Catholicism is the external verdict of the church.</i><br /><br />I think the internal evidence is relevant to Catholicism, at least to some degree, but you're right, what ultimately counts is what the Magisterium declares.<br /><br /><i>Ironically, Bart Ehrman begins with the same premise as Catholicism. He regards the canon as an arbitrary collection. The product of power politics in the church.</i><br /><br />Well, there are Catholic historians who will stipulate that the Church (or their Church) engages in power politics. They won't deny it.<br /><br /><i>The Catholic argument generates a dilemma. Either these particular books belong together or they don’t. If they belong together, then you shouldn’t need an ecclesiastical fiat to constitute or justify that collection. Conversely, if you need an ecclesiastical fiat to constitute or justify that collection, then it must be fairly arbitrary.</i><br /><br />If I was a skeptic, it would certainly appear to be arbitrary. Because aren't the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant canons all different?<br /><br /><i>Another problem with the Catholic orientation is that it directs us away from the Bible to church history. We’re no longer looking at the primary source material. Yet the canon of Scripture is, itself, a primary source datum for the canon of Scripture. It contains within itself a certain amount of internal evidence regarding its own composition and codification.</i><br /><br />Practically speaking, it does appear that way. But I think (good) Catholic historians would painstakingly ensure that their readers don't conflate exegesis and hermeneutics and various doctrines of Scripture with ecclesiology.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com