Paul contradicting James?

"Ever since Martin Luther, the great Reformer, referred to James as a "strawy epistle" (German strohern Epistel), the apparent disagreement between Paul and James has been notorious and has resisted solution. Some interpreters simply say that one writer corrected the other and that therefore we have evidence of two divergent forms of Christianity. I do not agree.

"What James was trying to counter is the notion that faith in God does not necessarily call for works of righteousness and compassion. What use is that kind of faith? James says, "you believe that God is one? (Jas 2:19). Without any works, this faith proves nothing. Why? The clue is found in the verse of Scripture that James quotes. He quotes the first part of the Shema: "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut 6:4). The Shema goes on to say, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might" (Deut 6:5). Does this sound familiar? According to Jesus, we are to love God and our neighbor as ourself (Mk 12:28-31). In James's letter, he is complaining of those who readily confess the Shema ("God is one, and I love God") but do not put into practice what Jesus required and is taught in the law of Moses: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18).

"Therefore, if someone is in need of clothing or food and all that the so-called believer extends is a greeting, "Be warmed and be filled," then the faith of this person is dead. James appeals to Genesis 15:6, but in connection with the great story of Abraham's willingness to offer up his son Isaac (Gen 22).

"None of this contradicts Paul. Indeed, Paul did fundraising for the poor of Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1-3; Gal 2:10), thus putting into practice what James regards as a faith proven by works. Paul also agrees that faith results in 'good works' (for example, Eph 2:10). This is why elsewhere he speaks of the 'obedience of faith' (Rom 1:5; 16:26). The question is one of emphasis and situation.

"The letter of James serves a pastoral function, urging (Jewish) believers to demonstrate the living reality of their faith through good works. It was not written to deal with teaching that claimed good works and self-made righteousness complete the saving work of Messiah Jesus. That was the problem Paul addressed."

Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity, 2006), 200-201.

A Teapot In Space

Bertrand Russell once gave an illustration that he supposed was analogous to the (non)existence of God. He said:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

(quoted in Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. p. 52)

Russell’s objection has been parroted by many atheists (including Dawkins) ever since, culminating in the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But there are a few rather pronounced problems with the analogy Russell (and, by extension, Dawkins and the new anti-theists) have brought up.

First is the fact that the analogy is impossible to take seriously. What I mean by this is that the only reason the analogy works as an attack against faith is because nobody (granted the exception of a few kooks) would affirm the existence of a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars on the basis of it being in "ancient books." Such a hypothesis would not be taught "as the sacred truth every Sunday" because reasonable people would never submit to such a stupid idea. Russell’s analogy works because what no one accepts as reasonable (a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars) is supposedly linked to what the vast majority of people accept as reasonable (the existence of some form of deity). Dawkins uses the analogy to show that simply because we are agnostic about something (after all, we cannot disprove the existence of the teapot without having omniscience), that does not mean we have to give equal odds to both sides of the question of existence of the teapot (i.e. there’s a 50/50 shot it actually exists). Says Dawkins:

The point of all these way-out examples is that they are undisprovable, yet nobody thinks the hypothesis of their existence is on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence. Russell’s point is that the burden of proof rests with the believers, not the non-believers. Mine is the related pointed that the odds in favor of the teapot…are not equal to the odds against.

(ibid, p. 53)

But this brings up an immediate question. Why are these "way-out examples" to be taken seriously in the first place? If "nobody thinks the hypothesis of their existence is on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence" then in what way do these examples cohere to the concept of the existence of God?

Such counter questions are far from trivial. Consider for a moment why no one believes in the teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. First, a teapot is a man-made object. Very few men have ever been to space, and the odds are that exactly none of them brought a teapot up when they made the trip. Further, even if we stipulated that someone now threw a teapot into orbit, Russell’s analogy requires that it be an ancient belief.

If you do not think the man-made feature of the teapot matters, consider what would happen if I changed the hypothesis slightly. What if instead I said: "There is a rock the size of a teapot that orbits between the Earth and Mars." Suddenly, the analogy (as used by Dawkins) breaks down. The odds that there is a teapot-sized rock in solar system are so high as to be certain. The odds that this rock could be between the Earth and Mars are only slightly diminished—after all, we know of many asteroids between Mars and Jupiter, and it would not be illogical to assume that some of these asteroids meander and could get trapped in orbit between the Earth and Mars.

Thus, if we simply switch from viewing a man-made object to viewing a natural object, the analogy immediately breaks down. While we still cannot prove the existence of said rock, it very well may be "intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it." This is why the analogy must rely on the use of a man-made object. But in this case, we know that no man has ever been between Earth and Mars (except perhaps fleetingly while in orbit around the Earth—a situation that would not be the case for the "ancient books" used in the analogy), and that no one has ever lost their teapot there. The existence of the teapot becomes irrational because the origin of teapots is Earth-bound and likewise bound to humans.

But while this deals with Dawkins’ use of the analogy, there is another point we need to address regarding the original use of it by Russell. Russell claims that the burden of proof is on the believer of the teapot, which is true so far as that goes. After all, there is simply no phenomenon that needs to be explained by the existence of a teapot between Earth and Mars. The teapot’s existence is completely gratuitous; it serves no purpose other than for the analogy. This is why stipulating the existence of a teapot would be so ridiculous—there is no reason for us to believe in the existence of a teapot because there is nothing that needs to be explained by the existence of a teapot.

So we see that we are justified in ridiculing the existence of a teapot between Earth and Mars. The problem is that Russell and Dawkins then want to transfer the ridicule on the teapot analogy toward belief in the existence of God. This immediately fails, however.

God is not a man-made object (note for the atheists: this is not saying that God is not a man-made belief, for indeed all false beliefs of God would be man-made beliefs of God). If God exists, His existence is not due to the existence of man; He exists apart from man. Thus, Dawkins’ use of the analogy immediately shows discontinuity between the teapot and God. We are not speaking of the existence of an object that we know would not normally appear between the Earth and Mars. We are speaking of the existence of an object that would transcend the universe. This is hardly analogous.

Further, there are phenomena that are explained by the existence of God. Most obviously, He fits as the answer to the question: Why is there something instead of nothing? The very existence of the universe screams out for a reason for being. Why does the universe exist at all? While a teapot floating between Earth and Mars answers no questions, the belief in a God does answer questions.

This is why the analogy does not work at all. The (admittedly) bogus analogies are not even in the same ballpark as the question about the existence or non-existence of God. While it is certainly the case that atheists will dispute the necessity of God as an answer to the question of why existence exists, the odds question that Dawkins brings up with his use of the teapot analogy is immediately thrown into disrepute. As for Russell, if God does answer the question of why we exist (as the vast majority of people believe He does) then we have a reason for stipulating the existence of God. This does not even touch the subjective experiences that many people claim to have, which would provide personal reasons for those people to believe. Further, it ignores other evidences (such as classical Christian evidences, like the missing body from Jesus’ tomb, etc.). None of these extra evidences are much relevant to the point that Russell’s analogy and Dawkins’ rehashing of it are in no way coherent to the question of the existence of God.

33,000 Denominations?

Every so often this gets trotted out from Catholic Answers and other places.

It's been addressed:

Svendsen:

One

Two

White:

Here

When sola scriptura "fails"

i) As I’ve said before, the primary objection to sola Scriptura is a pragmatic objection: it doesn’t work because it results in “chaos” (choose your favorite adjective).

Therefore, sola Scriptura cannot be the rule of faith which God has enjoined on his church.

By this logic, you can verify or falsify a rule of faith by its consequences. A rule of faith that has undesirable consequences is a false rule of faith.

ii) Now, I think it’s quite possible to answer this objection on its own grounds. One can mount a pragmatic argument for sola Scriptura. Indeed, I’ve already done that:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/value-of-theological-competition.html

iii) But let’s challenge the premise of the objection. Take the following verse of Scripture:

”I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live (Ezk 20:25; NASB).”

If we were to apply the high-church objection to Ezk 20:25, we would have to conclude that the Mosaic law was uninspired. This couldn’t be a divine ordinance, for the Mosaic law precipitated a national apostasy.

But, according to this very verse, apostasy was not a merely incidental or unforeseen consequence of the Mosaic law (or some subset thereof), but an intentional consequence thereof. God gave the law for the express purpose of provoking this particular outcome. As one commentator explains:

“Ezekiel seems to have put back the reference from Canaan to the wilderness in line with his theme of Israel’s early rebellion (Heider, The Cult of Molek 373n740). A new set of legislation forced them into a track that was to culminate in death, after their refusal of Yahweh’s life-affirming terms,” L. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48 (Word 1990), 12.

“Theologically the divine policy is akin to the role of prophecy in Isa 6:9-10, where the prophetic word is given to seal the people’s fate by giving them an opportunity to add to their sin by rejecting that word,” ibid. 12.

Did the failure of the people to keep God’s law signal the failure of God’s law? No. To the contrary, God’s law was instrumental in their failure.

Hence, it is demonstrably false to judge a rule of faith by its consequences, for the word of God serves a number of purposes, both to bless and to curse.

The value of theological competition

The primary objection to the Protestant rule of faith is that it leads to divergence rather than convergence. I’ve dealt with this objection from many different angles. Now I wish to approach it from one more angle.

Human beings are prone to over refinement. You know the old adage that anything worth doing is worth doing well.

By “over refinement” I mean taking things to a logical extreme, or increasing degrees of specialization and precision. By itself, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Let’s take some examples. Take the game of golf. It started out as a pastime. A pleasant way to kill time.

However, men also have a competitive streak, so what began as an idle recreation became a professional sport. At that point it becomes important to design the perfect golf club, to perfect the optimal grip, to perfect the optimal swing, and so on.

Increasing resources are diverted and devoted to mastering the fine art of hitting a rubber ball into a hole in the ground. Cutting edge technology is deployed to design the most aerodynamic golf ball (e.g. hexagonal dimpled balls) or the most efficient putters and drivers.

Like any sport, golf also has a set of rules. Rules for keeping score as well as regulations governing the design specifications of a legal golf ball. There are golfing magazines and golf instructors.

I’m not venturing a value judgment on these developments. That would take it too seriously. It’s just a game.

There’s no intrinsic value in hitting a rubber ball into a hole in the ground. The whole exercise is inherently and patently artificial. But anything human beings do, however trivial or arbitrary, they tend to improve on over time—learning to do it better and better.

Likewise, there’s nothing inherently wrong with taking things to a logical extreme. Whether it’s good or bad largely depends on the veracity of the operating premise.

I used the example of golf, but I could illustrate the same point with watches or cars. These are essentially utilitarian inventions, but as with just about any other human invention, the impulse towards over refinement leads the designer to extend and fine-tune his technology to wholly gratuitous levels of precision or performance. Does any one really need a Rolex? A dime store Timex will get the job done.

But that misses the point. The appeal of a Rolex is that it’s so blatantly gratuitous.

Same thing with a Ferrari. There’s a sense in which the faster you can make a car go, the less useful it is as a car—since speed has become an end in itself, at the expense of storage capacity. But, of course, folks don’t buy a Ferrari to buy groceries.

Once again, I’ve not venturing a value-judgment on any of this, but merely illustrating a larger point. For the same psychology takes root in theology.

A theological tradition, if allowed to develop internally in cultural isolation, is apt to become overly refined. It becomes quirky and absurd.

The examples are almost endless. You end up with quaint, legalistic dress codes which were originally well-intentioned, but have hardened into dogma.

You end up with violent schisms over the one true way to pronounced the name of Jesus or make the sign of the cross.

You end up with communion tokens.

You end up with gilded shrines encasing the finger bone of a legendary saint.

The altar call becomes the central sacrament in fundamentalism. The altar call is to fundamentalism what the Mass is to Catholicism.

I could multiply examples, and my examples would reflect my own theological bias. But I say all that to make this point: theological competition is healthy, because theological competition has a pruning effect on theological eccentricities.

When a particular tradition enjoys an unchallenged monopoly, it becomes inbred and overbred—like a hairless dog the size of a kitten. Isolated theological traditions either go from good to bad or bad to worse. It’s only a matter of time before rite makes right.

But competition purifies the competition. When one tradition shines a spotlight on a rival tradition, that makes it more difficult for an idiosyncrasy or historical accident to graduate into an article of faith.

By itself, competition doesn’t prevent theological quirks and curiosities from mutating into pious dogmas, but it exposes them for what they are, and offers an escape route for those who have the ears to hear.

Is there too much theological diversity in Christendom? Undoubtedly. But I’d much rather have a healthy dose of theological competition than allow a doctrinal or ecclesiastical monopoly to go unchecked until it perfects a false premise or optimizes a primitive corruption—leaving us fettered and shackled in a dungeon of dogmatic decadence.

Red-Shirted!

Whoops!

A Buffalo-based health care company promising to give clients "the redshirt treatment" apparently doesn't know what the phrase suggests to Star Trek fans.

AdRants reported on the campaign, including a photo of an Independent Healthcare billboard that reads, "You Deserve the RedShirt Treatment." The ad refers to the company's red-shirted staff, but the company is apparently unaware of the treatment of "red-shirts" on Star Trek, usually minor characters brought on to die and demonstrate the threat to the major characters.

According to Wikipedia, "A redshirt is a stock character, used frequently in science fiction but also in other genres, whose purpose is to die soon after being introduced, thus indicating the dangerous circumstances faced by the main characters." AdRants attributes the term to Star Trek, "in which security officers wear red shirts and are often killed on missions."

In addition to its negative science fiction connotation, the "redshirt treatment" is used in American education to indicate a student whose eligibility has been postponed or put off to allow that student time to develop. The phrase came out of college sports, where it refers to players who have been recruited and practice with their teams but are not eligible to play varsity sports. It also refers to students who are held back a year, most often from kindergarten, to give them time to catch up with other students at the same level.

Independent Health received top honors from U.S. News & World Report's study of America's best health plans, where it was ranked ninth among national HMOs.

From Trektoday.com

The Cook/Manata Debate On Infant Baptism

As Jeff Downs has mentioned on the Pros Apologian blog, Gene Cook and our Paul Manata recently debated on the issue of infant baptism. The audio from the debate is available here.

Atheism’s New Bulldog

Atheism’s New Bulldog: Sam Harris thinks Christians are not only delusional, they’re dangerous. But is his bark worse than his bite? by Holly Pivec

HT: Christian CADRE

Liberal Orthodoxy encore

ORTHODOX SAID:

“Beware of book blurbs.”

Very well. Since Orthodox objects to “book blurbs,” let’s reproduce some verbatim abstracts from one of Tarazi’s books:

Here one must recall that, besides editing the prophets' words into scrolls as scripture, the school of Ezekiel proceeded to produce its own writings, the Torah (Pentateuch), in order to present a more systematic view of their teaching [13].

The Pauline school took the first step by putting together the master's epistles into a corpus, and it augmented that corpus with a series of additional letters composed along the line of his teachings and, as was usual in those times, superscripted with his name out of deference to him (the first of these being Colossians and 2 Thessalonians).

The gospel of Paul to the Gentiles carried Jesus for them; the only Jesus they knew, beginning with Timothy and Mark who had never personally seen him, was the reality engraved on their minds and hearts by Paul's apostolic words [15]. They -- probably leaders such as Timothy and Mark -- must have decided that Paul's written legacy was inadequate, even supplemented as it was by works such as Colossians.

The event that led to the decision to write a gospel book was Paul's death. This left the Gentile churches in a very precarious position with no apostle supporting them and necessitated finding a different, yet equally authoritative, means of support. Paul's epistles were being collected, and Timothy did provide a new charter (Colossians) based on Paul's apostolic authority, but despite everything said above about the importance of Paul's apostolic word over his person, that written word in these collected epistles still did not carry the same weight as a living apostle. The remaining living apostles were associated with the Jerusalemite leadership, which had openly rejected the believing Gentiles' freedom from circumcision and the Mosaic ordinances. The only hope was to sway one of these leaders into the Pauline camp. James himself (or his following) might be too difficult to persuade, but Peter (or his following) was apparently less adamant on this position than James and seemed a possible convert to Gentile cause.

Thus, Mark was someone who actually shifted allegiance from Barnabas (and Peter) to Paul, i.e., he himself had done what was about to be asked of Peter or his successors.

The fact that Mark was the bridge to the Petrine following must have sealed the tradition that the gospel was named after him; and he may well have actually been the author. However, the gospel text seems to allude to Mark as part of the gospel story [16]. Another candidate would be the author of Luke-Acts, who shows a mastery of the Greek language essential for anyone contemplating an undertaking of this sort. Moreover, this would explain the liberty Luke took in rewriting the first gospel into his monumental two-volume work, Luke-Acts. At any rate, if Luke was the author, he would have written "Mark" under the scrutinizing eye of both Timothy and Mark, given the delicacy of the matter. Since the appeal to Peter was either written by Mark himself or used Mark as an example, or both, this book is in a sense a "Markan" message to the Petrine following, and since Luke's name brings to mind Luke-Acts, I shall henceforth refer to this gospel and its author as simply "Mark."

Mark capitalized on this situation and formulated his literary plan according to the scheme of Ezekiel. The divine word, now as Paul's gospel, summoned the Jerusalemite church to break with the insurgent Judaism of Judea, and it did so from outside Jerusalem -- from Rome or Western Asia Minor. Moreover, it called upon that church to move away from Jerusalem and settle among the Gentile churches, from whom the divine word as gospel was now originating. And since this divine word was identified with Jesus himself, the crucified Messiah, Mark used whatever traditions about Jesus were at hand and presented them as a story, namely the story of Jesus from Galilee. The importance of his Galilean origin is that it means he came from outside Jerusalem and outside Judea.

So Mark decided to create a "story of Jesus" and intended it to serve as scripture, but what will have been the source for the overall outline of that story? Could he have created it from scratch, devising his own plan for fitting numerous short vignettes about Jesus into a cohesive whole? I am convinced that he in fact utilized a story outline that had already been known among the Gentile churches. Earlier I referred to two essential points: the practical equivalence between the person of Jesus and the words of the gospel concerning him; and the fact that for the Gentile churches as well as for the Jews Timothy and Mark, Paul was the apostle, the original authoritative bearer of this gospel. When one takes these two matters seriously into consideration, one can understand that in the minds of Paul's disciples and communities, the "gospel story" was already outlined: it followed the major contours of Paul's life and activity as an apostle. It is not difficult to determine those contours, for they are laid out in some detail in Paul's epistles. These letters were written by him as an apostle, that is, in conjunction with his explication and defense of his gospel. Of these letters, only in Galatians and Philippians is the argument itself closely interwoven with personal data about Paul as an apostle, thus making the author's own history and experiences a kind of "gospel story." The former deals squarely with Mark's immediate interest: Paul's gospel on the one hand, and Peter, James, and the Jerusalemite church, on the other. The latter is Paul's testament from his place of imprisonment prior to his death and reflects the fact that the Jerusalemite church authorities did not heed Paul's appeal to them through his letter to the Romans. It is along the lines of the arguments in these two epistles that Mark wrote his "gospel story."

This whole process may seem strange to the contemporary reader, but it is precisely what had been done earlier in the Old Testament, and Mark was merely following an example set for him by scripture itself. The Pentateuch as a whole, as well as Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History in particular, were "stories" conceived on the basis of the prophets' teachings [29]. One can even say that these same "stories" were actually woven from the prophets' personalities and lives. Scholars have long pointed out similarities between Moses and Jeremiah [30]. They have also noticed that the Pentateuch describes two Aarons: one subservient to Moses and even opposed to him [31], the other his successor as high priest throughout the ages [32]. Whereas Moses led Israel during his lifetime, this second Aaron leads it throughout the generations [33]. This second Aaron bears a remarkable resemblance to Ezekiel, the exilic priest-prophet. Indeed, Ezekiel's eschatological Jerusalem is the blueprint of Aaron's temple in the wilderness [34]. Finally, Joshua, Israel's leader into Canaan, the land promised to Abraham, is patterned after Second Isaiah and, to some extent, Ezekiel. The names Isaiah and Joshua are from the same root in Hebrew meaning "the Lord saves," and Second Isaiah is the prophet who speaks of the return to God's city, Jerusalem, and at the same time presents Abraham as the one to whose progeny the promise is made [35]. On the other hand, the land's conquest by Joshua is done in a "priestly" manner: it is the Lord who leads Israel in a cultic manner into the land as though it is his holy of holies, exactly as Ezekiel's "new Jerusalem" is [36].

Mark has created a similar mixture in his gospel; the life of Jesus here is reminiscent of the New Testament "prophet" [37] Paul. Mark's purpose is to call upon the Jerusalem church and Peter's followers -- and ultimately through them the Judaism of his time as a whole -- to relinquish the earthly Jerusalem that is bound to destruction, and follow the prophetic call arising from the "wilderness of the Gentiles," into the new, heavenly Jerusalem. This prophetic voice was none other than Paul's, "an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures" (Rom 1:1-2). And consequently, the image of Paul shows through in Mark's portrayal of Jesus, just as the image of Jeremiah shows through in the Pentateuch's depiction of Moses.

http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/Very_Rev_Paul_Nadim_Tarazi_Category/Introduction_to_Mark/

Let’s now take stock of Tarazi’s position:

1.The Pentateuch is not a factual report of actual people, speeches, and events. Instead, the Pentateuch is an allegory of the exilic prophets, fabricated by the School of Ezekiel.

2.A number of the “Pauline” epistles (e.g. Colossians; 2 Thessalonians) are actually pseudonymous productions, fabricated by a Pauline school.

3.Timothy and Mark didn’t personally know the historical Jesus. All they knew about Jesus was filtered through the teaching of Paul.

4.The Pauline school was at loggerheads with the Jerusalem apostles. Mark as alienated from Barnabas and Peter.

5.Mark may have written the Gospel attributed to him. Or it may have been written by Luke, under a Markan pseudonym.

In any event, it doesn’t preserve Petrine tradition. Rather, it’s addressed to Peter. It’s an exercise in ecclesiastical power politics.

6.The author of Mark tells the “story” of Jesus from Galilee, not because Jesus really came from Galilee, but because Mark is modeled on Ezekiel.

7.The Gospel of Mark is not a factual report regarding the life and teachings of Christ. Instead, it’s an allegory of the life and teachings of Paul. Galatians and Philippians, creatively rewritten as a mock historical narrative. A theologumenon or imaginary reification of doctrine under the garb of history.

8.The author of Mark padded out his allegory with whatever Jesus traditions he had access to.

And what was the source of his Jesus traditions? Well, we know what the source wasn’t. He didn’t get his information from the Apostles who actually lived with Jesus, day in and day out, for the duration of his public ministry—for the Gospel of Mark is written in opposition to the Jerusalem apostles, as a piece of religious propaganda to counter the official version of the gospel promulgated by the mother church in Jerusalem.

Tarazi’s historical reconstruction is the latest iteration of the old Tübingen school, a la F. C. Baur. It also repristinates the old form critical view, a la Bultmann et al., in which the Gospels are allegories of the church. The real sitz-im-leben is the church, and not their putative historical setting.

So, between the allegorical character of Mark’s Gospel, and the author’s lack of access to firsthand information, the historical reliability of his Gospel would be just about nil. Ninety-nine parts imagination to one part residue fact.

Welcome to the one true Church!

Liberal Orthodoxy

From Steve:
---------

Note the liberal view of Scripture implicit in these Orthodox introductions to parts of the Bible:

Old Testament Introduction, Vol. I; Historical Traditions

Paul Nadim Tarazi

This revised edition of Paul Tarazi's The Old Testament: An Introduction — Historical Traditions takes into account twelve years of additional research. The way historical background is presented constitutes the biggest change: this book no longer includes a reconstruction of the "history of Israel." The author concludes that none of the scriptural books were intended to offer a history in the sense that we use that word today, so any efforts to construct such a history necessarily lead one astray from the original intention of the scriptural text. What the Scripture's original authors and editors did intend was to present a long ma'al — a Hebrew word that is variously translated "parable," "allegory," "proverb," or "edifying story." Therefore, the best way to understand the biblical books is to focus on the story itself.

Without imposition, Fr Tarazi presents the evidence for his exegesis and invites the reader to judge whether or not it clarifies the text. Besides effectively making sense of otherwise hard-to-understand texts, Fr Tarazi dismisses speculative discussions about matters such as if and when the exodus "actually happened" and thus leaves more room for in-depth discussions of other issues.


New Testament Introduction, The, vol. I; Paul and Mark

Paul Nadim Tarazi

Fr Tarazi explains how the very concept of a New Testament "scripture" came into being, beginning with Paul's letters. Paul's death then left a void in the leadership of Gentile Christianity, which was still under attack by Jewish Christianity. In order to defend the faith as it was preached by Paul, some of his followers created what is now the Gospel of Mark. Their purpose was not to make a historical chronicle of Jesus' life or a systematic presentation of Christian doctrine, but rather to defend Paul's conception of Christianity from the remaining (Jewish) apostles. In writing the story of Jesus, they interpreted Jesus himself and the events of his life according to what they knew of the teaching s and life story of their own leader Paul.


New Testament Introduction, Volume III; Johannine Writings

Fr Paul Nadim Tarazi

Written for the non-specialist reader, this edition covers the Johannine literature - Revelation, the Gospel and the Epistles. Specifically, Tarazi addresses the enigmatic Book of Revelation with its fantastical creatures, the significance of the numbers 666 and 144,000, the Millennium and so-called "futuristic prophecy." Perhaps most interestingly, the author makes a case that the head of the Johannine school was none other than the evangelist Mark who fulfilled the perceived need to provide a written record for the Church as the apostolic age was drawing to a close.

The Rev. Dr. Paul Nadim Tarazi is Professor of Old Testament at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary.

Godlessness goes kitsch

Richard Dawkins continues his secular crusade with “The Out Campaign”:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1471,The-Out-Campaign,Richard-Dawkins

Among some of the choice vignettes:

“Related to it is ‘Reach OUT’ in friendship and solidarity towards those who have come out, or who are contemplating that step which, depending on their family or home town prejudices, may require courage.”

This sentiment exhibits an odd combination of cultic paranoia and patronizing condescension, as if unbelievers are hiding under their beds as they quiver in fear of marauding Christian death squads.

“Put a bumper sticker on your car. Wear a T-shirt. Wear Josh's red A if you like it as much as I do, otherwise design your own or find one on a website such as http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist;”

I actually decided to spend a little time browsing this website. At first I thought it would be merely puerile and kitschy. And, indeed, there’s plenty of that on display, such as the Featured Dog T-Shirt, with atheistic slogans.

How does Dawkins think that promotes the image of atheism as the rational alternative to Christianity?

But, as it turns out, the puerility and kitsch factor represented the highpoints. From there it rapidly descends to such items as the “Infant/Toddler T-Shirt devil child.”

Why does Dawkins think that making a little kid wear a “Devil Child” t-shirt is an appropriate way of promoting atheism?

Frankly, how is that any different from Hamas members who dress up their toddlers as junior suicide bombers?

Then you have a whole selection of baby bibs, such as the “Smekkur,” which depicts a crucified alien, or the “Hunt Morons for sport” baby bib.

Why is Dawkins inciting violence against Christians?

There’s also the “Satan fish symbol” baby bib, as well as “Daddy’s Little Heathen” bib (with a red-horned halo).

Aside from the question of whether babies should be turned into posters and billboards for atheism, why does a website promoting atheism resort to so many Satanic motifs?

Are we intended to associate atheism with Satanism?

And how does the “Baby Blue F****U” (expletive not deleted on original) baby bib promote atheism? How does Dawkins think that a baby bib dropping the F-bomb is a great way to advertise atheism?

Are we intended to associate atheism with the F-bomb?

The same site also has a lot of Nietzsche quotes emblazed on bibs and t-shirts and buttons and baseball caps.

If Dawkins wants to make a proto-Nazi who died of syphilic dementia the posterboy for atheism, that’s fine with me.

“Chill OUT (exhort others to do so). Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people.”

Except that if, to develop his own paranoid comparison, Dawkins imagines that he and his fellow dubitantes are in a situation comparable to the French Resistance under the Vichy regime, then we’d expect our atheistic devils to keep their tails tucked inside their pants, with their horns sanded down and well-hidden beneath a baseball cap.

“The nice woman next door may be an atheist. So may the doctor, librarian, computer operator, taxi driver, hairdresser, talk show host, singer, conductor, comedian. Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins, nothing to be alarmed about.”

Except that if you take a look at Dawkins’ social blueprint, there’s plenty to be alarmed about:

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/print_format.php?id_article=1914

Rejecting radical Islam -- one man's journey

Rejecting radical Islam -- one man's journey

Orthodox Platonism

The apophatic theology, whose roots are found in Philo and Clement of
Alexandria, was specially developed by Gregory of Nyssa and Denys the
Areopagite.

[5] Disc.7,21,2-33; SC 405,232-236.

But there is danger for all three of them. For it is difficult to
comprehend (God), it is impossible to express (Him),[9]

[9] Cf. Plato, Timaeus 28c.

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_5_2

For one who is not pure to lay hold on pure things is dangerous,[1]
just as it is for weak eyes to look at the sun’s brightness.

[1] Cf. Plato, Phaedon 67b.

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_5_3

In this idea, one can discern the influence of Plato, who said that to
reach pure knowledge is only possible when one is liberated from one’s
body and contemplates things with one’s soul alone.[21]

[21] Plato, Phaedo 65e-66d.

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_5_4

The image of the sun, which derives from Plato,[8] is one of Gregory’s
favourite images when he speaks of God.[9] Gregory uses this image in
particular when he speaks of the human person’s striving to God as the
highest good:

...From many and great things... which we receive and will receive from
God, the greatest and the most generous is our inclination and our
kinship to Him. In the realm of intelligible things God is the same as
the sun in the realm of sensible.[10] The sun illumines the world
visible, while God illumines the world invisible; the former makes
bodily sights sunlike, while the latter makes intelligible natures
godlike. The sun, while giving a seer to see and a seen to be seen, is
itself incomparably more beautiful than what is seen; in the same
manner God, while giving a thinker to think and an object of thinking
to be thought of, is Himself the climax of everything intelligible,[11]
so that every desire finds its end in Him and nowhere else reaches
forward.

[8] See Republic 508c-509b.

[9] This Platonic image is also used in Disc. 21,1; 28,30; 40,5; 40,37;
44,3.

[10] Cf. Disc.28,30,1-3; SC 250,168.

[11] Plotinus, Enn.6,7,16: ‘The sun, cause of the existence of
sense-things and of their being seen, is indirectly the cause of sight,
without being either the faculty or the object: similarly this
Principle, the Good, cause of Being and Intellectual-Principle,is a
light appropriate to what is to be seen There and to their seer;
neither the Beings, nor the Intellectual-Principle, it is their source
and by the light it sheds upon both makes them object of Intellection’.

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_5_7

The theme of illumination is, in turn, inseparable in his thought from
the theme of purification (katharsis).[6] Gregory inherited an interest
in this theme from his studies of ancient Greek philosophy, where
katharsis is one of the key notions.[7]

[6] Cf. C. Moreschini in SC 358,62-70; T. Špidlik, Grégoire, pp. 75-83.

[7] On the idea of katharsis in Plato and Plotinus see A. Louth, The
Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition, pp. 7-10; 44-47.

To understand this text, one should remember that in the Platonic
tradition the way to perfection was perceived as one from multiplicity
to simplicity, from duality to unity. Plotinus, in particular, claims
that in order to come to the knowledge of the Unity we must become one
from many.[12] Contemplation of the One is, according to Plotinus, a
total unity with the One which excludes all multiplicity or diversity:
‘There were not two; beholder was one with beheld; it was not a vision
compassed but a unity apprehended. The man formed by this mingling with
the Supreme... is become the Unity, nothing within him or without
inducing any diversity; no movement now, no passion, no desire, once
this ascent is achieved... It was a going forth from the self, a
simplifying, a reunification, a reach towards contact and at the same
time a repose’.[13] The highest stage of the mystical ascent is a state
of ecstasy, a total mingling with the One and diffusion in Him. The
vision of the highest Intellectual-Principle is connected in Plotinus
with the experience of the vision of light emanating from it.[14] One
can, of course, point to the disparity between the ecstasy of Plotinus
as a diffusion in the impersonal One and the mystical contemplation of
Gregory as an encounter with the personal Deity, the Trinity. Yet one
cannot but see a startling similarity of language, terminology or
imagery between the two authors.

[12] Enn.6,9,3.

[13] Enn.6,9,11. Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Disc.21,1,25-26; SC 270,112:
‘God is the limit of everything desirable and repose from every
contemplation’.

[14] Enn.5,5,7-8.

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_5_8

However, he does not limit himself to scriptural and traditional
sources; he also borrows something from ancient Greek philosophy.
Echoes of Plato[3] are discernible in the following text:

I believe the words of the wise, that every fair and God-beloved soul,
when, set free from the bonds of the body,[4] it departs from here, at
once enjoys perception and contemplation of the blessings which await
it... and goes rejoicing to meet its Lord... Then, a little later, it
receives its kindred flesh... in some way known to God, who knit them
together and dissolved them, enters with it upon the inheritance of the
glory there. And, as it shared, through their close union, in its
hardships, so also it bestows upon it a portion of its joys, gathering
it up entirely into itself, and becoming with it one spirit, one
intellect and one god... Why am I faint-hearted in my hopes? Why behave
like a mere creature of a day? I await the voice of the archangel, the
last trumpet, the transformation of the heavens, the transfiguration of
the earth, the liberation of the elements, the renovation of the
universe.[5]

[3] Cf. Phaedrus 246a-256a.

[4] Cf. the Platonic image of the body as a prison for the soul: Plato,
Phaedo, 62b; Kratylus 400c.

[5] Disc.7,21,2-33; SC 405,232-236.

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_5_11

And finally:

esp. pp13-15).

Liturgy and Mysticism: The Experience of God in Eastern Orthodox
Christianity. Part I

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/Liturgy.pdf

(Just scroll down for the good parts).

Platonic Orthodoxy

Deification in Christ

The rest of our discussion on Gregory Nazianzen will be devoted to what is the true core of his theology and mysticism, the idea of theosis, deification of the human person. This idea is a cantus firmus of the entire corpus of his discourses, from the First, which was pronounced at the threshold of his career as a preacher, to the Forty-fifth, which was written in his old age. This theme also runs through Gregory’s theological poetry.

The terminology of deification which is employed by Eastern Fathers is borrowed from the Platonic tradition, while the doctrine itself has biblical roots. The idea of people as ‘gods’,[1] the notion of image and likeness of God in the human person,[2] the themes of our adoption by God,[3] our participation in the divine nature[4] and divine immortality[5] - all these notions form the basis of patristic teaching on deification.

We find the idea of the deification of the human person the incarnate Word of God as early as in Irenaeus. According to him, the Word ‘became what we are in order to make us what He is’.[6] ‘The Word (became) man’, says Irenaeus, ‘and the Son of God (became) son of man so that man... might become a son of God’.[7] In other words, through the Incarnation of the Word, the human person becomes by adoption what the Son of God is by nature. This theme was developed by Clement and Origen. In the fourth century it found particular attention on the part of Nicene theologians in their polemic with Arianism. St Athanasius made the formula of Irenaeus even more concise: ‘God became man in order that we may become gods’.[8]

However, it was precisely Gregory Nazianzen who made the idea of deification the foundation-stone of his theology, and it is after him that this theme would become a core of the development of the theological and mystical tradition in the Christian East. As D.Winslow rightly points out, ‘no Christian theologian prior to Gregory employed the term theosis (or the idea contained in the term) with as much consistence and frequency as did he; both terminologically and conceptually Gregory went far beyond his predecessors in his sustained application to theosis’.[9] Already in his first public sermon, the themes of the image of God, assimilation to Christ, adoption by God and deification in Christ become fundamental:

...Let us recognize our dignity; let us honour our Archetype; let us know the power of the mystery,[10] and for what Christ died. Let us become like Christ, since Christ became like us. Let us become gods for His sake, since He for ours became man. He assumed the worse that He might give us the better; He became poor that we through His poverty might be rich; He took upon Himself the form of a servant that we might receive back our liberty; He came down that we might be exalted; He was tempted that we might conquer; He was dishonoured that He might glorify us; He died that He might save us; He ascended that He might draw to Himself us, who were lying low in the fall of sin. Let us give all, offer all, to Him Who gave Himself a ransom and a reconciliation for us. But one can give nothing like oneself, understanding the mystery, and becoming for His sake all that He became for ours.[11]

The goal of the Incarnation, says Gregory in his second public sermon, was ‘to make man god and partaker of heavenly bliss’.[12] By His sufferings Christ deified the human person, having mingled human image with heavenly one.[13] The leaven of deification mad human flesh ‘a new mixture’, and the intellect upon receiving this leaven ‘was mingled with God and deified through Divinity’.[14]

Formulae of Irenaeus and Athanasius appear in Gregory’s writings in various modifications:

Being God, You became man and was mingled with mortals: You were God from the beginning, and You became man later in order to make me god, since You became man.[15]

Christ... made me god through the image of a mortal (which He accepted upon Himself).[16]

The Word of the Father was God, but became man, as we are, so that, having mingled with the mortals, He might unite God with is.[17]

...As man, He is interceding for my salvation, until He makes me divine by the power of His incarnate manhood.[18]

Since man did not become god, God Himself became man... in order to reconstruct what was given through what is assumed.[19]

In his Theological Discourses Gregory adds a significant qualification to the formula of Athanasius: God became man ‘in order that I might be made god to the same extent that He was made man’.[20] Thus a direct link is established not only between the Incarnation of God and deification of man, but also between the extent to what God became man and man became god. Gregory adds this qualification in order to oppose the teaching of Apollinarius:[21] if God did not become an entire man, there is no possibility for a man to become entirely god. In one of his poems directed against Apollinarius, Gregory goes even further and places the Incarnation of God in direct dependence on the deification of man: ‘He became man to the same extent that He makes me god’.[22] Recognition of the fullness of the human nature in Christ presupposes the belief in deification of the entire human person, including his intellect, soul and body; and vice versa, the idea of deification presupposes faith in Christ as a human person with intellect, soul and body.

The idea of participation of the body in deification is one of the main points of difference between Christian concept of deification and ins Platonic counterpart, the idea of ‘becoming god’, which we find in Plotinus.[23] In the latter’s philosophical system, the matter always remains evil and opposed to everything divine.[24] Gregory, on the contrary, asserts that in the person of Christ the flesh is deified by the Spirit: the incarnate God is ‘one from two opposites, flesh and spirit, of which the latter deifies and the former is deified’.[25] In the same manner the body of every person who attained to deification in Christ becomes transfigured and deified:

By narrow and difficult way, through narrow gates,

which are not passable for many, with a solemn escort,

Christ leads to God me, a god made of dust,

who was not born god, but was made immortal from mortal.

Together with the great image of God[26] He draws also my body, which is my assistant,

in the same manner as a magnet-stone attracts black iron.[27]

---

[1] Cf. Ps.81/82:6; John 10:34.

[2] Cf. Gen.1:26-27; Rom.8:29; 1 Cor.15:49; 2 Cor.3:18 et al.

[3] Cf. John.1:12; Gal.3:26; 4:5 et al.

[4] Cf. 2 Pet.1:4.

[5] Cf. 1 Cor.15:53.

[6] Against the heresies 5, introduction.

[7] Against the heresies 3,19,1; 4,33,4.

[8] On the Incarnation 54.

[9] Dynamics, 179.

[10] The term ‘mystery’ (mysterion) here refers to Easter.

[11] Disc.1,4,9-5,12; SC 247,76-78.

[12] Ñë.2,22,14-15; SC 247,120.

[13] PG 37,1313 = 2.94.

[14] Letter 101 (First letter to Kledonios); SC 208,56.

[15] PG 37,971.

[16] PG 37,762.

[17] PG 37,471.

[18] Ñë.30,14,8-11; SC 250,256 (Wickham, 272).

[19] PG 37,465.

[20] Disc.29,19,9-10; SC 250,218 (Wickham, 257).

[21] Apollinarius taught that God in His Incarnation assumed only human flesh, whereas human intellect and soul were replaced in Him by the divine Word (Logos).

[22] PG 37,471.

[23] Enn.1,2,6: ‘Our concern is not merely to be sinless, but to be god’.

[24] Cf. Deck, Nature, 79.

[25] Disc.45,9; PG 36,633.

[26] I.e. soul.

[27] PG 37,1004-1005

The way towards deification

We see that Gregory regards the Incarnation of God as a pledge of the deification of the entire humanity and every human person. But how is this ideal of deification worked out in practice? What is the way towards deification for each particular person?

First of all, the way is through the Church and the sacraments. According to Gregory, the Church is one body, which ‘receives cohesion and consistence by the harmony of the Spirit’ and which is destined to become ‘worthy of Christ Himself, Who is our head’.[1] It is within the Church that the human person can ‘bury himself with Christ, be risen with Christ, inherit Christ, become son of God and be himself named god’.[2] The true Church may not necessarily be numerous, it may be persecuted by heretics, deprived of its buildings and external grandeur, but if Christian faith is preserved in it undamaged, it remains a place of God’s presence, of the deification of the human person, a place where the Gospel is preached and where people ascend to heaven: ‘They have houses, but we the Dweller in the house; they have temples, we have God;[3] and besides it is ours to be living temples of the living God,[4] living sacrifices, reasonable burnt-offerings, perfect sacrifices, gods through the adoration of the Trinity’.[5]

The salvation of the human person takes place in the Church through his participation in the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. In Baptism, he is reborn and recreated by the deifying energy of the Holy Spirit: ‘...The Spirit... deifies me through Baptism... From the Spirit comes our rebirth, from rebirth comes a new creating... He makes us His temple, He deifies, He makes us complete, He initiates us in such a way that He both precedes Baptism and is wanted after it’.[6] As to the Eucharist, here we ‘partake of Christ, partake of His sufferings and His godhead’.[7] While Baptism purifies one from original sin, the Eucharist makes one a participant in the redemption worked out by Christ.[8]

Deification occurs because of one’s love for God. According to Gregory, ‘love for God is a way of deification’.[9] The end of this way is mingling with God, which is deification: ‘I am Christ’s possession: I have become a temple and a sacrifice, and I shall become god, when my soul is mingled with the Godhead’.[10]

The way towards deification also consists of good deeds towards other people: ‘Show your zeal not in evil-doing, but in doing something good, if you want to be god’.[11] Philanthropic activity is assimilation to God: through being generous and merciful a governor can be a god to his subjects, a rich person to the poor, a healthy person to the sick.[12] Deification is not only an intellectual ascent. The entire life of a Christian should become the way towards deification through observing God’s commandments: ‘Be elevated in your life rather than in your thought. The former deifies, while the latter can lead to a great fall. Measure your life not according to a scale of insignificant things, for even if you ascend high, you will always be lower than (what is demanded) by the commandment’.[13]

The ascetical life also contributes to the deification of the human person. Gregory speaks of the virgins as those who ascend to the heights of deification through their bodily and spiritual purity: ‘Around the light-bearing King, there stands a blameless and heavenly choir: those who haste from earth in order to become god, those who are bearers of Christ, ministers of the Cross, despisers of the world, who are dead for earthly things, who are anxious about heavenly realities, who are lanterns for the world, clear mirrors of light’.[14] The ascetical life, however, is necessary not only for virgins and monks: every Christian should be an ascetic, at least to a certain degree, if he wants to reach deification. In his Eleventh Discourse, which was dedicated to the feat of the Maccabees, Gregory admonishes his flock as follows:

If we find enjoyment in the pleasures of the belly, if we take pleasure from transient things.., if we consider this a place for parties and not for temperance, if we hope to find here time for commerce and affairs and not for ascent and, may I dare say, deification, to which the martyrs are mediators,[15] then, firstly, I do not think that this is an appropriate moment... Secondly, I would want to say something more sharp, but will abstain from reproach out of respect to the feast. In any case, this is not what the martyrs are waiting from us, to say the least.[16]

Finally, the way towards deification consists of prayer, mystical experience, ascent of the intellect to God, contemplation of God. ‘What do you want to become?’ asks Gregory of his soul. ‘Do you want to become god, standing in light before the great God, rejoicing with the angels. Then go further, spread your wings and ascend upwards’.[17] Through prayer and purification of mind the human person receives the experience of the knowledge of God; this experience becomes fuller as he comes closer to the goal of deification:

...(God) enlightens our governing faculty,[18] if it is purified, in the same manner as the speed of lightning enlightens our sight. I think that this is in order to attract us to God by something that is attainable, since what is totally unattainable cannot be an object of hope and attention, and in order to precipitate an admiration by what is unattainable, and to cause greater desire by being admired, and to purify by the desire, and to make divine by purification; and, when we have already become deified, to speak with us as God Who is united with gods and comprehended by them and known by them as also He knows those whom He knows.[19]

As we can see, deification, in Gregory’s understanding, is the highest stage of the knowledge of God, when the incomprehensible God becomes comprehensible, so far as this is possible for the human nature. Deification is also the goal of Christian ‘initiation’ through the sacraments. It is the completion of all ethical and ascetical efforts of a Christian. It is the peak of a person’s prayer and mystical life: it is here that unity between him and God takes place. Deification is salvation of the entire person, transfiguration of the intellect, soul and body. Becoming godlike, the human person brings profit not only to himself: he also reveals the Word of God to others.[20] Thus every Christian may contribute towards the attainment of the goal of existence of everything, which is salvation of the humanity, transformation of the universe, entering of all who are saved in the Kingdom of heaven, eschatological deification of all creation.



[1] Disc.2,3,13-17; SC 250,90.

[2] Disc.7,23,10-12; SC 405,240.

[3] This discourse was pronounced in 380 in Constantinople, where all churches were still in the hands of the Arians.

[4] Cf. 2 Cor.6:16.

[5] Disc.33,15,3-13; SC 318,188.

[6] Disc.31,28,9-29,33 (28,9-15; 29,31-33); SC 250,332-334 (Wickham, 295-296).

[7] Disc.4,52,14-16; SC 309,156.

[8] PG 37,462-463 (transl. by P.Gilbert).

[9] PG 37,957.

[10] PG 37,1399.

[11] PG 37,944.

[12] See Disc.17,9; PG 35,976: ‘Imitate... God’s philanthropy. The most divine in the human person is that he can do good. You can become god with no special effort: do not lose your chance of deification’ (these words are addressed to the governor of Nazianzus). See also Disc.14,26; PG 35,892: ‘Be god to someone who is in misfortune, imitating God’s mercy’ (the words pronounced in order to encourage rich people of Caesarea to give alms). We should note that the expression ‘to be god’ in this context is metaphorical, whereas in other places Gregory speaks of real deification.

[13] PG 37,934.

[14] PG 37,538.

[15] The idea that martyrs (saints) are mediators in deification will become very important in iconoclastic epoch and will be further developed by such writers as John of Damascus.

[16] Disc.11,5,17-30; SC 405,340.

[17] PG 37,1437-1438.

[18] I.e. the intellect.

[19] Disc.38,7,12-22; SC 358,116. Cf. 1 Cor.13:12.

[20] Disc.39,10,21-24; SC 358,168-170.

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_5_9
http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_5_10

Trouble in Tahiti

Over at a pseudo-Reformed, quasi-Catholic blog, a dispute has broken out over Mariologyy. Peter Escalante, a former Catholic with a formidable command of historical theology, has had this to say.

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

Michael,

Kevin is right to note the serious problems with Roman Mariology. For one thing, it is not as ancient as many make out. The time which lapses between the Apostles and the first real signs of anything like the Marian cultus as practiced by the East is something like the time between the founding of Jamestown and now. Obviously, a great deal can happen in that time, not all of it good.

But as for your basic argument, it simply doesn’t follow: to say that the Church is mother, is not to say that the Church is mediator in the sense required by Roman devotion. There is no “Church” in between any soul and Christ; the union of the children of Adam with God in Christ *is* the “church”: the church is not a separate thing over and above any justified soul; when we say that the church is “mother”, we mean something like what is implied when we say that humanity is our mother: it is the material principle. The church does not intercede without me, nor does it mediate anything to me as if other than me. Thus, even a strong typological identity of Mary’s maternity and the Church’s does not imply mediation in any sense other than the material. Historical or material mediation does not get you to the kind of mediation explicitly taught in RC devotion, where Mary, representing the “Church” conceived as a reification of alienated believerhood, acts as a principle of mercy holding back the wrath of the Son, the channel of grace between God (to whom Jesus is monophysitically reduced in this scheme ) and man, etc.

And please spare me explanations that such are merely “popular” or “local” abuses : I would be ready to reply with a *vast* collection of fully imprimatured manuals, sermons, and so forth, showing that such really is the the lex orandi of Rome. In any case, one needs to be very careful to not confuse senses of a term. I once introduced two people to one another, and they are now married; but my historical mediation of their union does not, for example, imply that their married life continues to depend upon me in anything other than an historical way. I am not the mediator of their union in any further sense.

peace_Peter

Comment by Peter Escalante — August 16, 2007 @ 8:21 pm

Michael,

My ecclesiological commitments are apparent: your pointing out that I have them is no revelation, and certainly no argument. What of my situatedness do you think still undisclosed, and that you would wish me to declare?

Michael, I am no longer much disposed to pull punches with you, as has been my custom before now: your discourse on these on controverted topics is becoming increasingly more irresponsible and hinging on loose analogies, fallacy, conjecture, and confusion of senses, and lately, you have actually lapsed into offensive ad hominem remarks. I was astonished by your little outburst of some days ago but ignored it and would have continued to ignore it had you not brought it up once again.

So, to get that first thing out of the way: the reason I haven’t replied to your invitation to engage Ratzinger’s thought on Purgatory is because you are unwilling to read Roman theologians on Roman terms, as Josh has already quite ably pointed out regarding you on this matter. Anything Ratzinger says is to be read within and as normed by the hermeneutic constraints of prior teaching, and you, frankly, read- or rather, read away- that prior teaching as a liberalizing outsider, and thus unreliably.

Thus, for all your invocation of context and mediation, when reading in context doesn’t suit you, you claim that you are deploying a “hopeful” hermeneutic; I have no reason to doubt your honesty, but I can deny your qualification to discuss the matter if you aren’t playing by anybody’s rules but your own. The ways by which a partly-Reformed, partly Anglo-Catholic person might possibly appropriate a myth as personally meaningful tells no one anything about what Rome believes, nor anything about the truth of the disputed dogma. I however *don’t* read Ratzinger out of context: and the RC context of that topic has already been laid out out by Josh, and I don’t need to rehearse it here. So you and I don’t have a common framework for reading Ratzinger: my framework for reading him is the one Ratzinger himself would acknowledge: yours, however, which hinges on a hypothetical radical Roman self-reinvention, and is a method for reading out of context, would appall him. So since you will not even read Ratzinger as he would wish to be read, whatever I would have to say about his thought on Purgatory would be moot; and I had thought myself to be doing you a favor by passing over your rash invitation in silence. But, if you wish to have the discussion, we can certainly do that.

On mediation: your “sketching out” of the analogy, when parsed, actually doesn’t add any meaning beyond what is already there in the distinctions in play: you have simply given a more elaborated description of what is entailed in historical or material mediation, but you seem, for some reason, to think that you have gotten to something other; and then leave the point of the distinction unaddressed.

peace_Peter

Comment by Peter Escalante — August 16, 2007 @ 11:16 pm

Michael,

Unfortunately, you seem to be alone here in your estimation of the problem here: my reputation here is for measured responses and precise speech, and yours is, to put it simply, not. And I have not singled you out: I have been as critical of others’ remarks when occasion seemed to require it; they do not seem to be quite as touchy as you concerning it. I don’t mind your name-calling much, but I think you will be able to understand, upon calmer reflection, that the fact that you’re the only one doing it does not help your case along.

I have no access to the noumenal: simply an access to a rigorous training in the use of words: logic and rhetoric, not gnosis; and a training in historical method, and close attention to facts. I do not ask of you “chapter and verse” anything: I only ask that you use words responsibly, instead of elevating equivocation and associative thinking into a method. In discussion with you, I have said this again and again: I do not expect you to agree with me, only to make arguments which follow the canons of reason (or are those obsolete historical constraints from which postmodernity delivers us?), and which represent history fairly. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don’t. When you say strikingly misleading things such as that the dispute over justification disappears in a puff of smoke upon close analysis, then yes, I will have something to say about that.

By the way, my view on that matter is hardly received straight from Concordia: it is just as informed by the judgement of a noted centrist RC scholar who specializes in that topic, and who was intimately involved in those discussions in Germany. I saw no reason to lead with that, but since you are so interested in full disclosure of theological background, there it is. His principles are obviously quite different from mine, but his conclusions are certainly more akin to mine than to yours: his judgement is that the ecumenical future must focus much more attention on the differences than on apparent similarities. I can send you the article if you choose.

You yourself, Michael, have admitted than I know the Roman territory, old and new, better than you do: but since my opinion doesn’t follow the Tractarian line, you simply reject it is self-referential (consistency, by the way, is not the same thing as self-referentiality), without offering any argument as to why it is wrong. You have merely said that it isn’t “hopeful”; but you have never shown it to be wrong: and seem unable to entertain the idea that the world of your experience might in fact be marginal.

Scholarly courts will entertain all sorts of things: Alan Sokal demonstrated that not very long ago. But I am hardly as alone in my opinions as you would you suggest; as I have just indicated. But it is true that I am certainly not starstruck by academic theologians and their world: I find the paradigm of university research, founded as it is on the assumption of uncertainty and the itch for novel production, to fit the practice of theology very badly. Like Lewis, I don’t think much of self-referential little circles of cerebral parvenus writing hyperbolic blurbs on the back of their friends’ books: I prefer the company of the tested old writers, whom you seem so eager to get beyond, unless they should have something in them to corroborate the productions of your illative sense.

But even with regard to moderns, your estimation certainly differs from mine. The fact that you could cite Osborne, as you did some days ago, as a theological authority still astounds me: and if the readers were to familiarize themselves with his work, they too might wonder what on earth you were thinking.

On Ratzinger, if you had been paying attention to my comments here over the last few months, you would know that I do not object to the idea of intermediate state and actually favor it, and have actually provided you with a Protestant historical pedigree for the idea (Forbes/Wesley/Hobart), of which I doubt you had been previously aware. And I think no one but you here would find suspicious second-guessing of Ratzinger, involving forked tongues and sinister unspokens, in what I had said: the fact is, I read him as he would wish to be read, and you do not.

I do wish you well, Michael, and although I have been alarmed by what strikes me as irresponsible erasure of real differences in your opinion on these points, I continue to regard you as a creative and insightful mind with much to offer. If I have misjudged you or misread you, I of course ask your forgiveness.

peace_Peter

Comment by Peter Escalante — August 17, 2007 @ 3:12 pm

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/?p=1269

Universalism in Eastern Orthodox tradition

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_6_10

A Devastating Exposé Of Benny Hinn

CBC's "The Fifth Estate" recently ran one of the most devastating televised exposés of Benny Hinn I've seen. You can read about it and watch it online. (I recommend reading the "Story Update" section at the bottom of the page.) The program features Justin Peters, a Christian who recently completed a Master's thesis on the life and ministry of Hinn. The producers of the program also interviewed (or were in contact with) more people who were close to Hinn and are now willing to publicly criticize him.

Last year, I wrote a post comparing Benny Hinn to Jesus Christ. See also here.

One more reason to vote for Mitt

Apparently Mormonism is excellent preparation for a career as either a porn star or sociopathic killer (among other professional highlights):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Latter-day_Saints

Dear Jon

Jon Curry has been hawking the views of Bobby Price on the dating of various NT books. Now, even liberal NT scholars feel the need to present a concrete alternative to the traditional attributions. Indeed, a major reason they reject the traditional attribution is because they imagine that the various NT books don’t fit the milieu to which they’ve been traditionally assigned, but, instead, fit with some later milieu.

Hence, before we can properly evaluate the evidence for his position, Jon needs to get far more specific about what his own position actually amounts to.

So, let’s ask him a few basic questions of the sort that liberal and conservative scholars alike try to answer in order to argue for their own position.

1.What are the “real” dates that you assign to each of the 27 books of the NT, and what’s your evidence?

2.Who actually composed the various books of the NT? What individual, circle, religious movement, or school of thought? And what’s your evidence?

3.Where were the various books of the NT actually composed, and what’s your evidence?

4.What concrete circumstance occasioned the composition of each NT book, and what’s your evidence?

5.What was the target audience or implied readership for each NT book, and what’s your evidence?

6.In addition to treating some or all of the NT writings as forgeries, you are also prepared to treat some of the patristic writings a forgeries. Which patristic writings do you regard as spurious?

7.Please repeat steps (1)-(5) for each patristic writing you regard as spurious.

8.When you deny the authenticity of a writing, do you also deny the historicity of the person to whom the writing is ascribed? In other words, do you deny the writer as well as the writing?

I ask because you’re apparently prepared to deny the historicity of Jesus. If so, do you extend your scepticism to the historicity of the apostles or church fathers? If so, which ones, and why?

Ancient ebooks

Here are some online primary sources relevant to NT textual criticism, ancient stenography and the like.

Catalogue of New Testament Papyri & Codices: 2nd—10th Centuries
Oxyrhynchus Online
Papyri from the Rise of Christianity in Egypt
Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts Web
CEDOPAL
Leuven Database of Ancient Books
Lists and Catalogues in Greek Paraliterary Papyri
Advanced Papyrological Information System