Ok, if not this, then what?
Ok, so the Peter Enns debate is basically finished. Those who were in power consolidated their power, those who could not do so were marginalized out of the debate. I’m not saying I am ok with that, but I have come to terms with it the best I can. My question is now what? Assuming that Pete Enn’s answer to say Matthew’s use of Hosea is wrong, where do we go from here? So Peter pulled the lever and came up two cherries and a diamond. Game over, he loses his nickel and retires to the casino bar for not hedging his bets properly; but where do we go from this point?
All of his critics have robustly argued that he is not confessional, not very reformed, and while apparently he is evangelical, he is not the good kind of evangelical. He is (in their words) a post-conservative or a post-liberal, a Barthian or just post-post. Ok, so Peter Enns was horrifically bad and not WTS material, so…now what? We still have Matthew who seems to be doing funny things with Hosea. Personally I am sold on Pete’s answers to this problem, but since some are not maybe they (you?) can tell me what you do with the text. I personally am getting a little bit sick of sycophantic appeals to the confessions and hardly anyone ever opening a Bible and seeing if Pete got it right.
Here is what Richard Gaffin had to say. To his credit he is the only person I have read so far who actually addresses, albeit briefly, the scriptural data in his position paper. Because of this I exclude him from those who, in my opinion, are just avoiding the obvious and hiding behind the confessions. Since he has stated his commitment to not shirking the difficult questions, I would like to respond to one of his answers to a difficult question.
He writes here about the organic unity of scripture; specifically between Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:13
“For I&I, in contrast, any thought of unity, organic and interdependent, between the text of Hosea (what he, the human author, wrote, his intention) and the text of Matthew (his intention) is not only not present but denied, and with some emphasis. Contrary to Murray, given with the text of Hosea is ambiguity and disjunction, even contradiction it seems, between the meaning of the divine author and the human author (“what ‘the Lord has said through the prophet,’” on the one hand –“Hosea’s words,” on the other; again, “what God says” – “the surface meaning of the words on the page”
His critique then of Enns is that he has destroyed this organic unity between the texts…
“What I find Dr. Enns not only lacking an awareness of but also calling into question is the organic unity, that is, the unified coherence and didactic harmony, there is between the OT and NT documents…”
(Dr. Richard Gaffin - )
Dr. Enns would indeed read Hosea 11:1 to be about the exodus event, and would argue that Matthew 2:15 is reinterpreting the original meaning of Hosea 11:1 in light of the resurrection of Christ. This is not to say that Matthew is “misinterpreting” Hosea, but reinterpreting him in light of new evidence of what God is doing. Enn’s, to support his thesis, often cites that this was a common genre and style in 2nd temple Judaism and in Matthew’s world it would not have been out of place at all.
What Dr. Gaffin appears to be arguing (to the contrary of Enns) is that Hosea 11:1 has only one possible meaning. Therefore, when Matthew quotes Hosea and speaks about how the prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, this is the one and only meaning of the Hosea passage. It follows logically that Hosea, when writing this passage, had in mind the same meaning as Matthew; e.g. Hosea interpreted his words to be about the messiah. According to Gaffin (and apparently Murray) to preserve the organic unity of the Old and New Testaments, Hosea must be self consciously writing about the Messiah in Hosea 11:1.
I think a cursory examination of the passage at hand, however, reveals substantial problems with this flat reading of Hosea.
Hosea 11:1 – When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
Matthew 2:13-15 – When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
While the idea that there is a singular meaning to each passage may help to round out systematic views of scripture it runs over top of the grammatical/historical context of the actual text. If Hosea had in mind the Messiah as he wrote Hosea 11:1, which Dr. Gaffin claims he must have for the sake of organic unity then our problems have just increased innumerably. Assuming Hosea had in mind the person of Christ here, as Dr. Gaffin does, then the rules of Grammatical/Historical Exegesis require us to continue his train of thought with the following verse (Hosea 11:2) since it uses pronouns which “organically” refer it back to verse 11:1.
Hosea 11:1 – When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
Hosea 11:2 – The more they (Jesus or Israel?) were called, the more they (Jesus or Israel?) went away; they (Jesus or Israel?) kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols.
If Hosea has in mind the Messiah in verse 11:1, then to preserve the organic unity of the text he must also have in mind the Messiah when he continues using the pronouns which refer back to the noun of 11:1. On Gaffin’s reading then Hosea is possibly a bit ADHD, and his text is an organically rent text, because verse one is about the messiah (even though is seems to be about the exodus) and verse 2 is about the nation of Israel? This is a very odd construction indeed.
Might I suggest that if “organic unity” (a bit of a red herring, IMO) is to be preserved about the text itself, then a better construction than what I offered above is to simply read the ENTIRE passage of Hosea 11:1-12 as being about the Messiah, not about Israel and Ephraim. Hosea then must be arguing that the Messiah would sacrifice to the Baals and burn offerings to idols! Of course if Hosea has in mind here the image of the only begotten son of God sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols then I have a very Lutheran suggestion. Hosea has committed the chief blasphemy, denying the Holy Spirit, and his entire book should be stricken from the canon immediately!
So Enns has to be wrong, right? So Hosea didn’t have one meaning by Hosea 11:1-2 and Matthew wasn’t doing a Christotelic read of the Old Testament. So which one of the views above is correct
1.) Rend Hosea 11:1 from Hosea 11:2; which makes Hosea functionally schizophrenic in his writing and makes organic unity in the 11th chapter of Hosea impossible.
2.) Claim that the Messiah was sacrificing to the Baals, which makes Hosea a wicked text.
Which one should I choose to have a “properly confessional bibliology?”
Nick Altman
Choose (unstated) option 3: Leave WTS and go study somewhere that doesn’t include special pleading as a standard hermeneutical tool, thus allowing Scripture to define its own categories and so achieving a properly confessional bibliology (i.e. one in which the confession doesn’t have much of a role in exegesis at all).
Nathan M said this on October 27, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
Can you add a sound effect of crickets chirping to this post?
Mark T. said this on October 27, 2008 at 5:38 pm |
Whoa.
Ham said this on October 28, 2008 at 1:54 pm |
lol…would you care to elaborate Ham?
nick altman said this on October 28, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
It’s just a good analysis and argument.
Ham said this on October 28, 2008 at 7:57 pm |
Oh, ok Ham, thanks – I thought that was a; “whoa, what are you talking about” which is why I asked
nick altman said this on October 29, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
Nick, I agree. I think that’s a troubling question that many of us have had. Enns actually tries to give a logically coherent answer, and for that I’m grateful. Good post!
I would like to see some of Enns’ detractors answer that.. If not Enns, then what?
Though I appreciate Dr. Graffins attempt at giving as an alternative.
Andy said this on November 1, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
Nick, out of curiosity, what do you do with Arminian readings of John 3:16? (You know that Arminians are different from Armenians, right?)
D G Hart said this on November 2, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
Darryl,
I think your question has two parts, one about systematic categories and one about exegesis.
The way I personally approach the systematic categories of arminian/calvinistic understandings of determinism are perhaps different than many people.
I could say a few billion things about that, perhaps I will put up a post explaining how I see the division.
The skinny of your verse is two fold, IMO. First, the calvinist has better systematic categories to understand the text, although not necessarily the best ones. The arminian has, IMO, less clear systematic categories. I would, still, reserve this as my opinion; I am fully convinced my way of understanding this verse is right, but I am not convinced that the arminian is any less intelligent, spiritual or convinced than I. Thank goodness I am to know as a creature and not as a creator.
If one separates this verse in its immediate context, however, I think the arminian read is basically right. This is a direct call to all people (not all elect people) and it calls all people into repentance and promises salvation to whosoever will come to him.
The arminian read captures this side of things, but their systematic categories don’t take in relevant scriptural data, even the hint which follows in the pericope, which also speak about God’s sovereignty. The arminians need to allow those relevant parts of scripture to inform their systematic categories. On the same token calvinists need to stop misreading this text as “whosoever of the elect” because that is not what it says.
Pax Christi…Nick
nick altman said this on November 3, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
I attended WTS last year and attended Enns’ last OTI class. I transferred because of the drama going on (since I am not reformed, I didn’t see much purpose in remaining at WTS post-Enns). This semester I have a bibliographic essay due and I thought Matthew 2:15 would be the perfect text. I was really interested in hearing what Gundry had to say about the text, to see if he would confirm what Enns and McCartney articulated in their article. At first, I was disappointed with his explanation. But after I read Enns and McCartney’s article again, I concluded that Gundry (nearly) nailed it. While Enns and McCartney explain the hermeneutic behind Matthew’s quotation, Gundry captures the theology of it. Gundry’s theology, in my opinion, comes closest at demonstrating the “organic unity” of Hosea 11:1 and Matt 2:15. For Gundry, God preserves Jesus signifying his divine sonship. This interpretation puts the greatest emphasis on the word “I” in the Hosea passage. Yes, Israel has become Egypt and Herod has become Pharaoh. Yes, Israel as son has become Jesus as Son. But the I remains the I AM who preserves his s/Son.
Joseph said this on November 6, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
Joseph,
I am not familiar with Gundry’s reading of the text. If you could summerize it that would be helpful. It would seem to me that our theology is most often driven by our hermeneutic, but certainly there is a reverse conversation in which our hermeneutic is challenged and developed by our theology.
The question comes down for me in what did Hosea intend in his writing. If when you say that “God preserves Jesus signifying his divine sonship” you mean that God knew what the ultimately Christotelic fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 woudl be, then I am fine with that; since God is Omniscent, this covers the divine aspect of an incarnational model.
The human aspect, however, is tricky. What I would suggest is that Hosea is writing a historical summation of the Exodus event and nothing else. For Hosea, both 11:1 and 11:2 are part of one pericope which speaks only about the history of Israel.
Matthew, however, is doing something like (well, perhaps its easier just to say he is doing) Peshar. He siezes on Hosea’s quote, and literally changes its original meaning in a highly stylized way to demonstrate that the history of all Israel is but a typology, the reality of which is Christ (Hebrews 9). From a modern perspective he is “misinterpreting” Hosea, hence Gaffin’s objection that the Bible loses organic unity. From an ancient perspective everyone was in on the joke. No one in a 2nd temple audience read Matthew and thought that maybe Hosea was really talking about Jesus not the Exodus. Matthew knew precisely what he was doing in changing the meaning of Hosea and so did everyone else.
In my opinion this is the unity of the text which we have, organic or otherwise, and so we must deal with the Bible we have, not the Bible we wish we had. Any other model I have seen or heard to date simply fails to take into account relevant data, so far as I am concerned.
I am however interested in Gundry’s model.
Pax Christi…Nick
nick altman said this on November 6, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
I was initially skeptical of Gundry’s conclusion because I wanted Gundry to come out and detail what Matthew is doing hermeneutically. Enns had us read Gundry’s “Theological Postscript” found at the end of his Matthew commentary, and I thought, of all people, Gundry would agree with Enns. So after reading Gundry and thinking “That isn’t what Enns and McCartney said,” I went back and read their article again.
I found that their focus was predominantly hermeneutical–what is Matthew doing hermeneutically? What I had to remind myself is that Matthew’s hermeneutic and theology are intertwined. The more I reflected on what Enns, McCartney, and Gundry wrote, the more I saw them approaching the passage from different but harmonious perspectives.
Gundry: “Though Egypt provides the background for Matthew’s use of Hos 11:1, emphasis falls on Jesus’ divine sonship, not on the geography of Jesus’ travels.”
I both agree and disagree. Theologically, Matthew is making a point about Jesus’ divine sonship; however, he accomplishes this hermeneutically, by typologizing Egypt and Israel, Israel and Jesus, (and implying a typological connection between Pharaoh and Herod). Some emphasis must be placed on geography–Enns and McCartney demonstrate this in their article.
Gundry: “The quotation comes before the return from Egypt to Palestine. Matthew’s fulfillment-quotations regularly refer backward to what has already happened in the narrative. The clause immediately preceding the present quotation stresses residence in Egypt till Herod’s death not departure from Egypt after Herod’s death.”
Gundry has come to the same conclusion Enns and McCartney have without actually seeing the hermeneutical subtleties they indicated in their article. The quote does not apply to Jesus leaving the land of Egypt. He goes on to make a theological conclusion based on his observations.
Gundry: “Therefore Matthew is not highlighting Jesus’ later departure from Egypt as a new Exodus, but God’s preservation of Jesus in Egypt as a sign of his divine sonship: God cares for Jesus as a father cares for his son.”
I think Gundry is right when he focuses on God’s actions and their significance; however, Gundry doesn’t seem to see how Matthew reinterprets Hosea’s Egypt to be Israel, nor that Herod functions as a new Pharaoh. (He does see the Israel to Jesus connection.) There is indeed a new Exodus, contrary to Gundry. But that new Exodus theme serves to point us to the God who calls his s/Son out of the land of oppression.
I propose that the organic unity of Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15 is the God who calls his son out from the land where oppression reigns. This is the single aspect of Matthew’s quotation of Hosea that his not been re-interpreted. The subject of the Hosea’s passage is the same subject of Matthew’s. Israel has become Egypt, Jesus has become Israel, and Herod has become Pharaoh. But God remains God, the God who calls his son out from the land of oppression. Gundry argues that Matthew stresses the common subject by saying, “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet.”
What does it mean for the Lord to say, “Out of Egypt I have called my son”? It means more following Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt than it did before. Thus, this event has fulfilled the passage, giving it greater (fuller) meaning.
When interpreted this way, Gaffin shouldn’t have any problem finding the “organic unity” he fails to see when reading Enns alone. While Matthew’s interpretation (pesher or otherwise) serves to recapitulate the history of Israel in the life of Jesus, the God who calls signifying his divine son remains constant.
As for what God knew about the future use of 11:1 when Hosea originally wrote it, the text doesn’t say. That will be answered by the various theological constructs we have of God and his knowledge.
As to what Hosea knew, I completely agree with you.
jk
Joseph said this on November 7, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
Nick: I mostly agree with you, but it would be better to describe this passage as a prophetic accusation rather than bare history. To call it historical is not incorrect, but by highlighting the function/purpose of the discourse as a whole, the incongruity between Hosea’s and Matthew’s meanings becomes more clear.
Jk: Hosea 11:1 does not appear as a bare statement of God’s act of deliverance. If it did, then your typological interpretation could work. Instead, the whole point of mentioning the calling of the son in v. 1 is to set up the ironic contrast with 11:2 – God called, and the more he called the more the went astray. That is to say, 11:1 has meaning as a part of a prophetic accusation/judgment. To quote 11:1 without 11:2 is to take it out of that context and thus to give it a quite different meaning (analogous to the way ellipses can be used to dramatically alter a politician’s words). Rather than seeking increasingly complex typologies, isn’t just easier to say that Hosea meant one thing, and Matthew meant something completely different? In the original context, Hos 11:1 constituted an accusation; in Matthew, it is a prophecy now fulfilled.
Nathan M said this on November 8, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
Nate,
You are right, the use of the term historical misses the actual theological purpose of Hosea. I was using the term a bit carelessly.
Joseph,
Thanks for your response. A couple of things occur to me about Gundry’s dealing with this passage. First, Gundry’s statement; ““Though Egypt provides the background for Matthew’s use of Hos 11:1, emphasis falls on Jesus’ divine sonship, not on the geography of Jesus’ travels,” I think misses the very implicit context of Matthew.
Matthew’s justification for linking the prophecies seems to be more geographically based than Gundry thinks. The linking between prophecy and geographical events is happening throughout the chapter. This includes Bethlehem, the place of his birth (Matt. 2:4-6), Egypt the place of his internment and then exodus (Matt 2:15) and of course the famous return to Nazareth (2:23). It will also continue into the next chapter; where John is in the wilderness and Matthew draws a corollary to the Isaiah passage (Matt. 3:1-3) All of these prophetic references are geographically significant. Matthew’s use of Hosea would appear to focus on the geography of the exodus event, and this would lead us to a less typological meaning of the Matthew text, IMO.
Secondly, the use of Pesher is well attested in the second temple period. WE freely admit that Biblical authors used all sorts of genres foreign to the modern person, such as Hebrew poetry, wisdom literature and Apocalyptic. It is not a stretch to me that they would also use Pesher style interpretations.
Thirdly, Matthew seems to do this more than once. He seems to be using a pesher in Matt 2:18, as the weeping of Rahmah appears connected to the exilic period spoken of in Jeremiah 31. What makes this verse more problematic is there is a definitive eschatological flavor to it. The passage in particular, however, still seems to be focused on the suffering that the Jews endured while in captivity.
Lastly I would submit Nathan’s objection as well.
I will say this. Gundry’s wrestling with this text as you have presented it demonstrates a much more nuanced and careful approach then any of the position papers of WTS which I have read. It is offering at least a possible counter interpretation. Although I find it a bit less plausible than simply declaring this pesher; I will none the less thoroughly read it to make an informed decision on his ideas. It has some merit.
Pax Christi…Nick
Nick Altman said this on November 8, 2008 at 11:23 pm |
Nathan, you point to a very difficult but necessary factor of any NT interpretation of an OT text. How much of the OT text is in the NT author’s mind? I doubt that question is easily answered for most (if not all) quotations in the Bible. At least one or two interpreters that I read explicitly claimed the author has in mind at least through verse 12 if my memory serves me correctly. I think it is safe to begin with the text that is quoted and then explore the context of that text. I would argue with you that Matthew is thinking beyond 11:1. I would be open to hearing you flesh out your thoughts further on this, especially if you believe the context of Hosea 11:1 would make what I articulated above untenable.
Nick, I totally agree that Gundry is ignoring the significance of the geography. That was why I was initially skeptical of his interpretation. But after I read Enns and McCartney a second time, I thought their interpretation gave further support to Gundry’s position. I think Gundry would have established his case much better if he had included the geographical significance of Matthew 2:15.
I did not mean to suggest Matthew was not involved in pesher. I haven’t studied enough on hermeneutical methods of the first century, so at present I try not to be dogmatic about it. My hesitancy to call what Matthew is doing pesher is not a rejection of what you are saying, just an admission of ignorance on my part at present.
I would love to see your thoughts after you review Gundry. I don’t trust my eyes to have caught all the subtleties of his reasoning, and you might have much more to say about his interpretation after looking over it yourself.
I am enjoying the dialogue, thanks to both of you!
jk
Joseph said this on November 9, 2008 at 12:21 am |
JK: in this case, it seems fairly clear that Matthew only had 11:1 at the most, and possible only 11:1b, in mind when he quoted this verse. The reason is that he could not possibly want to apply the rest of the passage to Jesus as the antitype of Israel because it is a consistent accusation against Israel. What I am arguing is that v. 1 is a central part of that accusation (originally) and that its application to Jesus can only be accomplished if is removed from the rest of the passage. Another way to put it is that Matthew reads 11:1 according to a different genre (for lack of a better term) than Hosea intended; Matthew reads it as messianic prediction; Hosea wrote a prophetic accusation. I wouldn’t call this a “misinterpretation” though, because that would imply some kind of mistake. Matthew knew exactly what he was doing.
This would seem to make positing complex typologies unnecessary. It is possible that the only typology Matthew is proposing is Israel=Jesus, but even that is not certain.
Nathan M said this on November 10, 2008 at 5:49 pm |
Dr. Enns is a heretic, let’s face it. He uses tenuous evidence at best to support his very questionable conclusions. Only someone devoted to lunacy would even consider his “option” viable! Westminster did itself a favor by giving him the boot; if they are truly committed to Scripture and Confession, they will continue the purging process until they have actual BIBLICAL scholars in place, not these makeshift Christians.
TR4LIFE said this on December 5, 2008 at 4:32 am |
TR4LIFE,
First, thats a great name. Have you heard of the first annual TR/HR party? Here is a link – you are invited
Ok, now to your post
You said Dr. Enns is a heretic, what precisely does that mean? Some have called him a “heretic” from the reformed faith, others a non Christian. Which use do you have in mind?
How is the evidence tenuous? This is emotive language, but it doesnt contain any real logical assertion. Is his understanding of the ANE background for the texts of scripture wrong? If so, how so?
Ok, so only someone devoted to lunacy would adopt his position; consider me psychotic. I assmue that you are familiar with the term “ad hominem” so I wont elaborate.
As far as actual biblical scholars, what connotes this? If I understand your take on what constitutes biblical scholarship it seems to me that “real scholars” for you would be something like replacing modern doctors with leech wielding bloodletters. Can you provide an example of a “real Biblical scholar?”
FInally, you didnt answer the question. Lets assume you are right and Enns is more toxic than Ricin laced tasty cakes. So what do you propose in his place? Should we perhaps just find someone with a bible and an “extra measur’ ” of the spirit and let him teach (I assume it would have to be a him) or maybe just pick any staunchly conservative OPC elder to teach about va’yikktols?
Pax Christi…Nick
Nick Altman said this on December 5, 2008 at 11:39 pm |
Gaffin hit the nail on the head; interpreting Scripture from multiple perspectives (as I hear Poythress is fond of doing) leaves it open to every theological whim out there (for example, NPP). This is dangerous not only because it destroys the integrity of Scripture, leaving it open to man’s interpretation apart from the HS, but also because it opens the door for rampant liberalism (as we see in erroneous theological agendae such as liberation theology and feminist theology). Enns’ position, though I admit is not entirely liberal, certainly is a slippery slope to this type of liberal thinking; and, this type of thinking ultimately leads to universalism.
Now, to answer some of your questions. Yes, Enns is a heretic because he is outside of the confession and, far more severely, outside the scope of faithful biblical interpretation; will he go to Hell? Probably. One who makes wild assertions about Scripture like that is clearly not elect (or else is substantially back-slidden).
Second, the point that his evidence is tenuous is more than valid. His use of the ANE documents is hardly proof of a standard ancient reading of the text. Furthermore, the intertestamental period is wrought with completely absurd expectations of a militant Messiah. So, using these documents to substitute Scripture’s self-interpretation is quite dangerous.
Which leads me to the point that any biblical scholar who would agree with Enns (as I understand most of the BT faculty does) also adopts his faulty hermeneutic. This person does not fit in at WTS and should perhaps look for a job at HDS or a like institution (I heard that universalism goes up there). I would consider real biblical scholarship to be study that is faithful to the text without throwing in wild theories based on evidence from an uninspired, pre-Christian people.
ius christi,
TR4LIFE
TR4LIFE said this on December 6, 2008 at 12:10 am |
OK, TR4LIFE – at this point you are either the most TR person I have ever met, or you are GLW, DGH or Art Boulet messing with me…I’ll bite, either way.
When did Gaffin speak against multiperspectivalism? Also, which then is the right perspective – or do you not believe that there has ever only been more than one way of viewing things, which is of course…your way?
Have you ever considered maybe Enns got it right and you are the one interpreting without the HS?
And after liberalism and universalism then he will become a Raelian and worship Charles Manson. Ultimately Enns and his followers will be flaming homosexuals with vampire fangs who sacrifice goats and their first born to Molech.
You know that slippery slopes are often fallacies, right…
Yes, he has offended the paper papacy of the confession and the punishments for such crimes is death. I find it hilarious that your first qualification as being a damnable heretic is “outside of the confession” and even worse “bad interpretation” and yet not once do you mention that he has denied an essnetial Christian doctrine. Unless of course exception to the confession or bad hermeneutics are heresy.
Clearly, and it was mighty white of Jesus to let you be able to see who is and who isnt elect.
This isnt what Enns has done. Out of wonder, my favorite question, have you read Inspiration and Incarnation?
Where do you get hermeneutics from – scripture or confession. If you say scriptures, how do you know how to read them correctly? (e.g. where did your hermeneutics come from to first read scripture and derive hermeneutics? – This is an important point and deserves a careful answer, IMO.
By pre-christian, do you mean…Jews? You do realize that God did inspire Jews as well as Christians to write scripture, dont’t you?
Never mind that weirdness, let me say that I agree; real biblical scholarhsip avoids wild theories and conjectures. Thankfully, Enn’s theories are not wild ones from uninspired, pre-Christian people. Rather they are based on the evidence of Scripture itself, not in some hermetic vacuum, but in the middle of the culture which God originally spoke into. I might suggest that your understanding of BT is based on wild theories by a bunch of uninspired post-Christian calvinist scholastics who do not simply rethink the thoughts of the Bible writers.
I realize you probably mean “the justification of Christ” but ius is normally translated law; an alterante word which is spelled the same in ecclesiastical latin is jus, which means gravy. I prefer this textual tradition, so “The gravy of Christ” right back at you there my little apple dumpling.
Pax Christ…Nick
Nick Altman said this on December 6, 2008 at 2:49 am |
I thank you for your assertion that I am “the most TR person” you’ve ever met because I take that to mean one who faithfully interprets
Scripture in accordance with the confession. (Though, on a side note, we haven’t actually “met.”)
I am not aware of Gaffin speaking out against multiperspectivalism (though, I wouldn’t be surprised if he has issues with it; but, Poythress is basically a demi-god at Westminster anyway so I doubt if Gaffin would actually speak out against him, especially in light of his imminent retirement).
I also don’t believe my perspective is the “right” one in and of itself; that is why I use the tools of tradition (the confession, for instance) to guide me in my interpretation of Scripture. And, I HAVE considered that Enns might have gotten things right but, in light of the confession (to which I adhere), I have ultimately concluded that he did not (yes, based on my opinion). The confession has been demonized largely in this whole Enns controversy by people like you who scoff at its value. This document was written by men, giants of the Reformed faith, who tried to be as faithful to Scripture as possible. One insignificant scholar like Enns cannot hope to undermine such a pillar of the Reformed tradition that has stood the test of time and continues to be relevant to us today (and, when he uses language like “myth” when referring to Scripture, he does undermine it! Yes, I have read I&I).
I am well aware of the slippery slope fallacy, but in this case it applies. I’ve seen former friends go the way of liberal theology, to the detriment of faith. (Bart Ehrman, to name a popular author whom I’m sure you’ve read, is one example of this.) Another example is this absurd controversy in the PCA right now about commissioning (not to even mention ordaining!!) women deacons. The Bible so clearly speaks to women’s place of submission in the home and silence in the church that to even consider placing them in the deaconate is ridiculous. Look at the PC-USA; that hotbed of sin has been ORDAINING women pastors for decades now. And, where did it start? With women entering the deaconate. Now, they’re worshipping “Christa” and talking about unlocking the Mother Goddess. Absolutely ridiculous! I do agree that the slippery slope argument must be used within the bounds of logic, but, it most definitely applies to this discussion.
I thought that I had made clear the doctrines which Enns violate – but I will explicitly state it: First, the Doctrine of Scripture. Enns’ arguments destroy the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture by artificially imposing upon it his interpretation, saturated in an ancient cultural milieu riddled in sin and vice. Furthermore, he ravages Christology because he implies that Christ is anything less than perfect. If Scripture is not perfect (which he argues for in his book, albeit in a veiled fashion) then, according to his Incarnational Analogy, neither is Christ! This is NOT Christianity! On this basis alone I consider Enns unelect; but, that is just my opinion.
And, Enns has indeed used a pre-Christian culture by which to judge Scripture. I am well aware that they were Jews; yet, look at how harsly Christ condemns the spiritual leaders and pastors of the day. Clearly he saw them as unholy sinners, certainly not canonically inspired to produce any documents by which to measure our holy and sacred Scriptures against!
I derive my hermeneutic from both Scripture and tradition. Obviously tradition is secondary to Scripture’s role; yet, the work of many men of God centuries before help to guide the understanding of Scripture. These men were faithful to the text, not to wild notions. Divorcing Scripture from tradition (confession) leads to radical theologies. One could make the case, if you twist the words of Scripture appropriately, that women should be ordained or that homosexuality is acceptable before God or even that the Bible is only a book written to those oppressed in order to help them rise above it. Where do you draw the line? What is YOUR hermeneutic? Where does tradition fit into YOUR worldview and your approach to the text? Can you approach the text in a vacuum or do you rely on those who have gone before you? Or, is the Bible simple subject to mere reader response and has no one on earth who is its interpretive authority? These are tough questions…and, judging from our discussion so far, I will pray for you.
TR4LIFE said this on December 6, 2008 at 3:26 am |
TR4LIFE – You Said
We shall have to remedy that – What are you doing next Friday, 12/12/2008 – come over to my place for the TR/HR party.
Multiperspectivalism is an epistemological theory somewhat related to Coherantism. I am struggling to understand how having a Multiperspectival epistemology is dangerous or bad. Is the suggestion against objective knowledge what is at issue for you or is it a rejection of Foundationalism or perhaps something else?
So this is ultimately based on your opinion. Isnt that subjectivistic?
No, you misunderstand. I appreciate the confession if read properly. My scoffing is aimed at those who apparently don’t actually hold to a confession but to an insidious “tradition of man” which is condemned by Christ (I think myself in good company condemning these traditions along with Him.)
As an example I would refer you to WCF 31:4 – “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”
Now everyone claims to believe this, but functionally I think that probably you (and many others) at best pay lip service to this part of the WCF. What I perceive from the TR crowd is a use of confessions which has become the rule of faith. You said Enn’s was damnably heretical and when asked why he was “probably going to hell” your response on this blog was “Enns is a heretic because he is outside of the confession and, far more severely, outside the scope of faithful biblical interpretation.” How in the hell is a person a heretic based on being un-confessional and having poor hermeneutics? This definition of heresy is itself outside of both the confession and the Bible.
Good to know you read it. You would be surprised at how many people critique Enns and have not read his book (but have aread Beale or someone else on the subject.) I don’t think however that you have read him very charitably. He defines carefully what he does and doesnt mean by the term myth.
I actually have spoken to Bart a few times. I want to UNC-CH. Bart Ehrman was and still is a fundamentalist; much like yourself. He just switched teams midway. HIs thinking processes have remained the same and they have, If I may be so bold, more in common with yours than with Enn’s or mine.
You seem concerned that people are reading the Bible in the Sitz im Leben it was written in rather than a 16th century model. I think this is the problem in a nutshell between us.( p.s. – Where does the term inerrancy occur in the WCF?)
As an aside Im curious how you can even translate a Bible without referencing word meanings that themselves are discovered by looking in “an ancient cultural milieu riddled in sin and vice.”
Your reasoning is fallacious on two levels. First you are ascribing motive. Enn’s clearly states he is not saying that scripture is imperfect; if you want to read him uncharitably then fine – but he is clearly trying to do something else than you are above.
However, even “If He Had” made the claim that scripture was imperfect your logic is fallacious. This is a classic “converse accident” argument (aka.. ) This would be like an atheist taking Paley’s famous watchmaker analogy and concluding that since watchmakers don’t make perfect watches the analogy must also mean that God doesn’t make perfect creation. Before you go considering a person unelect you might want to purchase a logical textbook to make sure a person is actually saying what you think he is.
I guess I don’t see you reading them as a guide, but as an authoritative final word. Tradition as you are using the term sounds like a goalpost, not a signpost.
I base my hermeneutical world on what I can best reconstruct of the hermeneutics of the apostles and writers of scripture. I go both on tradition and modern scholarship. That is my best basis. I consider tradition (not just the reformed one either) in trying to understand how others have wrestled with these issues. All of these goes together to form my reading of scripture.
I suspect you do this as well in most areas. For instance I am sure that you are thankful for the tradition of Pasteur who discovered the rabies vaccine but I bet if you get bitten by a dog modern medicine will play a part as well as the tradition of medicine. The same ought to be true of scripture, IMO.
Your first two posts had no substance but were unqualified rants; stump speeches without any real arguments. That is why I simply responded with sarcasm. This post finally is hitting some substance, therefore I responded to your actual substance.
You did so well in addressing issues in this post until now and the “I’ll pray for you” comment. Please don’t be sanctimonious. Even if I am going to hell for not paying proper beatification to the Westminster divines I would appreciate some civil treatment in these my last hours from the holy types such as yourself.
Pax Christi..Nick
Nick Altman said this on December 6, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
who is GLW?
said this on December 6, 2008 at 3:30 am |
Becky,
GLW is a pastor out in arizona who posts on some of these blogs occasionally; especially Boulet’s and Connversation. He is, well, GLW is something else. I’m not sure where he went to but eventually he will be dug up and come back. I no longer think our poster above is GLW, although it would be great if he would identify himself.
Pax Christi…Nick
Nick Altman said this on December 6, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
Man, this debate is getting rowdy up in here.
Ham said this on December 6, 2008 at 9:24 pm |
I was in no way being “sanctimonious” in praying on your behalf. I truly hope that the HS will reveal to you the proper way to interpret Scripture (because, He’s obviously not involved with your interpretation now). As I see it, your hermeneutic is as subjective as you claim mine is. There is no way to get around it, short of embracing the strict Catholic adherence to tradition as gospel. (Even then, Catholics rarely agree on doctrine.)
Now to the “meat” of the matter. Multiperspectivalism is dangerous because it leads to a reader response theory that is just not justifiable by Scripture. I understand Poythress’ idea of three meanings (author’s intent, meaning of the text itself [i.e. "ojective"] and the reader’s interpretation) but that is an artificial and dangerous way to approach inspired text. (On a side note, your defense of Poythress is startling in light of his view on Enns – I would think you might dislike the man!) Scripture does not mean what readers of it claim it means. Again, this leads to abominations such as liberation theology, womanist theology, and homosexual theology. And, perhaps before you whip out the big guns like “Coherentism” and “Foundationalism” you should actually look up what they mean because from your use it is obvious that you don’t have a clue about philosophy or what these terms actually mean.
My opinion is admittedly subjective; but no interpreter can get around that. That is why adherence to the confession comes into play. If one’s interpretation of Scripture yields doctrine that is wildly out of sync with tradition, perhaps it should be re-evaluated. That is not to say that Scripture is somehow secondary to tradition; this is not the case at all. But, tradition is a helpful tool in interpreting Scripture (especially coming from post-Christ authors who were closer to Christ’s time than we [like Augustine, for example]). The Confession draws on these types of authors in its formation of doctrine. This is more than helpful to the interpreter who wishes to handle Scripture faithfully (which completely adheres to 31.4). Enns’ theology is outside of the confession and, arguably, Scripture itself. This is why he is suspect and this is why I consider him to a “heretic” (for lack of a better term). Only the Lord knows man’s heart and, if I were to ever meet the man, I would certainly witness to him. But, I do believe his soul’s final resting place is dubious.
Your side of this whole debate has demonized the confession. It has scoffed at its place in interpreting Scripture and relegated it to submission of man’s intellect. This is also dangerous. Furthermore, Enns destroys the perspicuity of Scripture by asserting that one must understand the Bible’s “Sitz in Leben” in order to fully understand it (see page 117 of I&I for an example). How would one who only has access to Scripture, then, ever be able to understand it? This is troubling.
You claim that I haven’t read Enns “charitably.” I fail to see how that is a bad thing; it’s not my responsibility to read him charitably; based on your faulty logic (which, you might want to bone up on using one of those logic books to which you referred me) you should be charitable with Gaffin and other critics of Enns (whom you yourself have failed to read “charitably”). I read Enns with all of my presuppositions, just like you read Beale and others with all of yours. It is impossible to get around that, no matter how much “logic” you wish to utilize.
I’m sure you would like to think that Ehrman and I are in the camp (thereby avoiding the responsibility of actually engaging me on the issues which I raised, women’s ordination, for instance, which I’m sure you would support [if you will allow me to continue your pattern of rampant assumption]) but this is just not the case. Ehrman regards Scripture as simply an ancient near eastern document. I consider Scripture to be the inspired holy Word of the triune God. Ehrman rejects Christ; I submit to Him. To place me in the same hermeneutical camp as Ehrman is both clumsy and irresponsible. If you consider me “fundamentalist” simply because I place value on faithfully interpreting the text then so be it. In the same regard, I consider you “liberal” because you don’t apply the same rigorous standards to the text. As you can see, both terms are unhelpful and to use them in such a fashion is far from “logical.”
Your argument about Pasteur is also illogical and a whopping red herring. Let’s dispense with Debating 101 tactics, shall we? Pasteur’s invention of the rabies vaccination has absolutely no relevance in a discussion about an interpretive act of Scripture. It was a secular invention. No matter how much one analyzes that event, it does not change objective truth that Pasteur did invent it (along with the pasteurization process for milk). I am not really sure how much you know about philosophy (obviously, from your post, not much) but before you tell someone to learn it, you might try getting the basics straight. For this, Wikipedia is helpful and will prevent you from appearing foolish.
It’s obvious we’ve reached an impasse – I am curious as to how you’ll respond to these issues.
ius christi,
TR4LIFE
TR4LIFE said this on December 6, 2008 at 9:26 pm |
TR4LIFE (your words in block quote)
Right, so the HS gives objective interpretation of scripture…got ya
Right, got ya… Hermeneutics (the tools we use to read scripture) are subjective (and therefore readings of scripture both yours and mine) are subjective (wait a second)…
Right, so scripture means what it means, its objectively understood – got ya…(of course above you said you were subjectively interpreting, and before that its was objectively revealed…Im getting a little confused)
Wow…um so scripture is subjectively read objectively understood, with subjective hermeneutics, and objective interpretation of the Holy Spirit and a subjective opinion…Wow, just wow…
Of course! Now, you have an objective understanding of the confessions, using your admittedly subjective hermeneutics to read them. This allows you to objectively read the scriptures (even though its only your subjective opinion) but thankfully you have the objective scripture which you understand objectively through the HS and subjectively through hermeneutics.
This is logically tortured. Either you are subjective – and approaching the objective truth of scripture subjectively (like me, Calvin, Enns and Poythress) or you are objectively understanding an objective truth. It cannot be both. You are either on a level playing field or Mt. Moriah. PICK ONE!
It has scoffed only at the worship of tradition and intellectually tortured statements like “Scripture does not mean what readers of it claim it means.” and yet “My opinion is admittedly subjective; but no interpreter can get around that.” That’s what it scoffs out.
Justin Martyr wrote – “”Not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh” – Justin Martyr (150 AD)
Ignatius, the Didache, Ambrose of Milan, Justin Martyr (INCLUDING Augustine) and many others held to a transmutation of flesh and blood (later to be called transubstantiation) – The Reformed Divines did not. If Enns broke with the confession then he broke with 400 years of tradition; a tradition which itself radically broke with 1600 years of tradition to begin. Maybe your problem is that your historical vision is myopic and you should just convert to Roman Catholicism.
Yes, the clear and yet subjective understanding with subjective/objective (and perhaps rejected) hermeneutics from above. Of course don’t worry it is informed by a truncated history which itself claimed that the Bible had been apparently unclear for 1600 years…
Ummm…delicious sanctimony. I have a BA from Chapel Hill in Philosophy. I think I understand the terms I used. I assume you are a Foundationalist (although I cannot be sure yet.) I read Multiperspectivalism as leaning towards a “Coherantist” view in that it seeks to engage three (or more) perspectives and to adapt each one relative to the others.
ROFL..It doesnt matter if I like him. I defend ideas, not people this is what it means to be intellectually honest. When someone says something I agree with I defend it; even if everything else they say is wrong.
Um, yes it is! Aristotle’s dictum might be helpful here. “The benefit of the doubt should be delegated to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself” Your use of myth was not the use which Enn’s intended and you admit you read him uncharitably. Judging on how you assumed I would read Poythress Im not surprised; this is scholarship not politics.
I should be charitable and in fact I think I have been. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Poythress a critic of Enn’s? Didn’t you express surprise just a few sentences ago that I would defend him? Now I am accused of being uncharitable towards Enn’s critics? Again this is tortured logic. Instead of another tu quoque fallacy how about you tell me “where” I have misread Gaffin, Poythress, etc…
You are, so far as I can tell, both fundamentalists; yes.
Speaking of rampant assumptions…I am probably complementarian but based only on the tradition of the early church which was male dominated. I think scripture is sufficiently ambiguous on the issue. I would be ok with ordination to deaconate based on romans 16. I haven’t “avoided” anything (more ad hominem) because my post was on Enn’s and his ideas not egalitarianism and ordination of female deacons.
It’s an analogy not a syllogism. Let me repeat my analogy. You don’t hold to “tradition at all costs” in medicine, do you. You don’t ask for leeches if you have a blood clot, or blood-letting to relieve ill humors because it is tradition do you? You don’t hold to tradition in technology, do you; preferring old gas lamps to electric lights? The point of my analogy was you only have this lopsided view of what tradition can offer in one area of your life…religion. Why is that?
Well, this Friday we can discuss the synthetic a priori categories and their ramifications for epistemology, or perhaps we could rap about why Wikipedia is not a very good place to source information and develop an understanding of philosophy.
The gravy of Christ to you as well…
Nick
Nick Altman said this on December 6, 2008 at 11:25 pm |
Before this discussion can go any further, I must point out a glaring typo that you seem to not notice: Enn’s should be Enns’ or (less aesthetically pleasing) Enns’s. Forgive me, the grammatician in me gets distracted by typos like that (though, I’m sure I’ve made my fair share).
I’m glad that you mentioned your BA in Philosophy because, from your posts, your degree seems more like BS to me. I’m also relieved that you think you understand the terms which you use; it would be nice if all of us could have a private language that only we understood and to which only we had access. And, speaking of politics, maybe you should consider a career because you certainly have a knack for twisting someone’s words to mean what you want them to mean instead of what he actually says (similar to your interpretation of Scripture). I said that Scripture contains objective truth; we, as sinful creatures affected by the noetic effects of sin, cannot grasp this truth objectively (apart from the intervention of the HS). Thus, our approach to Scripture can never not be subjective. However, that is not to say that any attempt at interpretation should be scrapped. This is why relying upon the confession as a helpful TOOL is so essential. Though it is NOT an inspired canonical text, I would argue that it is INSPIRED!
Interesting to me also is your statement “I defend ideas…not people”…if this were strictly the case, you shouldn’t give a Jew’s nose that I see Enns as damned. But, when your precious Enns was under fire, you certainly jumped through the hoop to defend him, did you not?
To the complementarianism issue – if you are complementarian, you should abandon your devotion to Enns and the whole NPP move. While I can appreciate someone whose theology is consistent, though contradictory from mine, I cannot stand a hypocrite; and you, sir, are a hypocrite of the worst kind. Either Enns and the NPP is right in saying that we must understand the cultural context of Scripture in order to properly interpret it (thereby providing for women’s ordination) or “my” side got it right in affirming that Scripture interprets itself and that the perspicuity of Scripture is not dependent on cultural issues/context (thereby denying women the authoritative role of ordination). You cannot have it both ways while still be consistent (and your BS in philosophy should tell you that). And, while your posts may not have been on egalitarianism, this issue is hugely relevant to the discussion because Enns’ interpretive framework leads to women’s ordination.
I understand that your Pasteur argument was an analogy; I was not denying this. I was, instead, saying that it is a bad analogy and not at all relevant to our discussion. In fact, your so-called analogy actually lends strength to MY hermeneutic because it shows me the extent to which you value modern scholarship over-and-above Scripture. Your analogy necessarily relates Pasteur’s work to Scripture (tradition of Pasteur; tradition of Scripture), with modern advancements in this area being made in the tradition of Pasteur, while modern biblical “advancements” (ahem) being made in the tradition of Scripture. Yet, Scripture is NOT analogous to Pasteur’s work because it is a divinely-inspired text; Pasteur’s work was not. Furthermore, applying modern medical advancements to modern theological interpretation of Scripture is analogous to playing basketball using the rules of Nascar. They are completely incompatible and have no bearing on this discussion. (Again, I’m sure your BS has helped you along here greatly…)
Finally, I indeed mean law when I use the term “ius Christi.” Because it is, after all, only through Christ’s fulfillment of the law that any of can be saved.
So, ius christi.
TR4LIFE said this on December 7, 2008 at 12:05 am |
TR4LIFE –
You are correct now that you have made me aware of it I will try to avoid the urge to purposely irritate you by doing it from now on.
In what way did I misuse the terms. You keep asserting that I am wrong without telling me how. By the way, what is your formal training in philosophy and from what university?
The question is how do you know that you are right. If you don’t, for sure, then admit so and act like it. Discuss issues instead of assuming people are inferior because they don’t have a proper measure of the spirit. You say you recognize that you interpret subjectively but when you say things like…
The implication is you know beyond any doubt you are right. This is objective knowledge, not subjective. A person who was truly humbled by a realization of the noetic effects of sin ought not to be so dismissive of ideas which differ. Like I said a few posts ago; you pay lip service to the noetic effects of sin, but you don’t really believe this. You believe you are right and everyone who disagrees is damned. This is the tortured logic of your posting.
I have no words. You worship the traditions of men by making statements like this.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. When people are sanctimonious jerks towards fellow Christians I get indignant of course. I would also get indignant if someone treated you in a poor manner. Thats the difference. It’s a shame you don’t understand that. I’ll take it as accidental that I am ethnically Jewish and might see a comment like “don’t give a Jew’s nose” as being a nasty racial slur. I will assume you didn’t know that and are just accidentally being a racist.
LOL…why would I lie about it? Sheesh you are a piece of work. Coincidentally Enns has nothing to do with NPP and I am not beholden to the movement.
You are literally just not making any sense. This is a false dichotomy. As I stated earlier the statements in scripture simply are too ambiguous to come to a position on women’s ordination. My complementarianism has nothing to do with scripture, but church tradition. I know that you don’t appreciate charitable reading, but this is a pretty consistent statement.
No it doesn’t this is a non sequitor.
An argument is not an analogy. An argument contains premises and a conclusion – I did none of this.
Well, perhaps that is what you were saying, but it’s not what you said. You said “argument”
Scripture is not analogous to Pasteurs work, because it floated down from heaven on golden tablets? Did scripture and theology advance through history? If so, does it still advance?
Pax Christi…Nick
Nick Altman said this on December 7, 2008 at 1:34 am |
1. Your position on women is directly related to your hermeneutic. Don’t get me wrong, I’m more than happy that you don’t support women in ministry (in my opinion, the fewer the better). Yet, you fail to see that your inconsistency in this matter is a direct result of the tension between your hermeneutic and your adherence to Enns’ notion of Scripture in relation to culture. Futhermore, NPP is relevant here because both Enns and the NPP reinterpret Scripture in light of their interpretations of cultural situations (whether it it be Second Temple or Enuma Elish material). You may consider yourself “complimentarian” but that fact is not supported by your hermeneutic and you hurt the complimentarian cause by associating yourself with it.
2. If I asserted that I was 100% sure that I was always right, that would absurd. Yet, how do you reconcile two opposing views (such as ours) when both party claims to be inspired by the HS? This cannot be the case. Thus, when in question, the more radical of the two positions likely is the errant one.
3. It is “non sequitur” not “non sequitor” – since you seem to be a self-proclaimed Latin “expert” you should be more careful in throwing around terms when you obviously don’t know them. Again, what was that about a BS in Philosophy?
4. Perhaps you are unaware that the term “argument” can have a plethora of meanings. While it is true, in a formal context, an argument is not analogous to an analogy, I was speaking colloquially. But I suppose you felt the need to justify your exciting BS in philosophy.
5. Finally, I would not argue that Scripture “advances” though I cannot be sure what exactly you mean by that term. Perhaps you can clarify your understanding of “advance” and I will respond.
ius christi
TR4LIFE said this on December 7, 2008 at 2:05 am |
TR4LIFE – well, outside of GWL you are probably the most arrogant and frustratingly sanctimonious chatter I have ever met. Im probably not going to continue this after this post.
Are you touched? I clearly explained my position. Scripture does not directly answer this problem because we cannot clearly determine if the issue was a cultural phenomenon (such as braided hair being taboo) or a universal edict. Therefore I rely on the early church traditions which universally did not permit women to be elders to formulate my position. This has nothing to do with my hermeneutic as I can arrive there without reading scripture at all.
Um, I have no idea what you are talking about. New Perspective has nothing to do with Enns, although they both do rely on cultural considerations to help formulate ideas. It seems you contention is any use of historical information to help guide the process of reading scripture is wrong. That is simply inane and not what the reformed divines which you seem so beholden to did.
This is from Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis.
And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba … there is a difference of opinion respecting the etymology. Some think the name is derived from the fact that the city consisted of four parts; as the Greeks call the city divided into three orders, Tripoli, and a given region, Decapolis, from the ten cities it contained. Others suppose that Arba is the name of a giant, whom they believe to have been the king or the founder of the city. Others again prefer the notion, that the name was given to the place from four of the Fathers, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were buried there with their wives. I willingly suspend my judgment on a matter of uncertainty, and not very necessary to be known.”
So Calvin doesn’t have a problem with a person who would assume that the name of this city derives from a Greek cultural tradition of naming cities after the quadrants in them. Im curious where in the Bible did this idea arrive from; or did he get it without allowing extra-biblical material?
First, you don’t assert it you just believe it – hence why I said pay lip service to ideas of your own fallibility. Secondly to answer you question of how to reconcile – It is easy. Actually become comfortable with your own fallibility. I am fine with the noetic effects of sin; we can both be inspired by the HS and disagree even on some pretty big ticket items. In fact we might get to heaven and you are right. At this point I am more concerned with your attitude and non Christian actions than you immediately odd view of scripture.
This is amazingly odd. So the more radical position is likely to be errant. Who was the most radical person proclaiming the most radical things in all of 1st century Palestine? By your logic should you have lived then would his message need to be rejected or accepted?
If you notice on your keyboard, the o and u are neighbors, but whatever – If you want to test Latin or philosophy knowledge we can. I have two years of the former and four of the latter at a recognized school. You have yet to identify yourself, any sort of expertise you might have in any of these matters, or any reason why anyone should listen to you. Certainly you have not demonstrated coherant thoughts. Furthermore you again assert that I have no understanding of either but other than a typo you have offered no arguments. You still haven’t shown how my usage of Foundationalism/Coherantism was wrong.
Perhaps you are unaware that in the last post you chided me for having “my own person meanings” for words. Scroll up.
By advance I mean…there is more of it now than there was in say the days of Amos. Theology also advances; so Amos wasn’t a Trinitarian (that comes later.)
voster jus promineret pinguidinem capitem…(have fun googling)
Nick…
Nick Altman said this on December 7, 2008 at 4:00 am |
Caput is neuter – perhaps in your extensive Latin training you never heard of the “neuter law” … your statement should read “voster jus promineret pinguidinem caput” – though I’m not entirely certain what you are trying to say. One possible translation is: “May your gravy overhang the fat head” or maybe “may your gravy jut out the fat head” but that makes no sense because the verb here would be intransitive. Either way, the statement makes little sense. Try this one instead “tui colei marcescat et sopio tui decocatur” – though I don’t google will be of much help here either.
TR4LIFE said this on December 7, 2008 at 4:27 am |
*think
TR4LIFE said this on December 7, 2008 at 4:27 am |
Capitem above is not a noun but a subjunctive verb from capio, but it was a valiant effort.
You got further than I thought you would.
As to your phrase, I thought you were against homosexuality – why all the interest in my junk Catullus?
Pax Christi…Nick
Nick Altman said this on December 7, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
Oh, and one more thing…my comment wasnt mean or rude – but yours was…was is that?
I suppose thats just the fruit of the spirit manifesting themselves again…
Pax Christi…Nick
Nick Altman said this on December 7, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
I have no idea where you’re getting that “capitem” is a verb. It’s not a Latin word my friend. If you meant to use the first person singular present act subjunctive it would be “capiam” because capio, capere is a third-io verb. at any rate, the phrase still doesn’t make sense. Perhaps if you tell me in English what you meant to say I can translate it into Latin for you.
TR4LIFE said this on December 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
Oh, about my comment – I am not homosexual but I was hoping that your “sign of the covenant” (as I hear your mentor is fond of articulating) would shrivel; then you could be sure that the HS does not manifest himself in you. A visible sign of invisible truth you might consider it.
TR4LIFE said this on December 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
The form Capitem is an archaic form of the first person subjunctive with a middle formative “it” meaning to “attempt to.” (It actually is likely an insertion of some archaic use of “eo” (meaning go) but this is debated) The stem vowel changes from the normative “a” which you indicated above to an “e” because of the new ending and syllable shift. Ecclesiastical Latin (If that is what you have studied) won’t contain this usage (so far as I know, I could be wrong.)
Don’t take my word for it, however – Im sure Cassel’s or Lewis and Short’s lexica will have this usage (as it was fairly common in pre empire Latin – especially in hortatory addresses.)
Hence my phrase is easy (well maybe not easy). “Your gravy is sticking out; I shall try to take hold of the fat.” – which is another way of saying…” If you are satisfied with what you have then fine…I’ll reach for something a bit deeper (such as the fatty portions ala Leviticus.) Granted that truth (veritas) was my first choice, but I thought fat was better in keeping with the gravy reference.
Now, for those who are not Latin speakers that might be following along, your comment was roughly translatable to – “May your testicals whither up and your penis shrivel.” You have claimed this is a reference to foreskin, but the word “praeputium” is a literal word for foreskin (and much like Isaiahs “almah, one has to wonder if you had foreskin in mind why wouldn’t you use the right word?)
Now no doubt we are not getting along, but Jesus told you to love your enemies – are you doing that? My phrase was neither mean nor nasty, nothing about a “fat head” as you original thought and while I have vehemently disagreed with several things you have said and have certainly used a bit of sarcasm I haven’t acted in a nasty manner. Your comment was absolutely lewd and mean spirited; not to mention the now twice over racial slurs about being Jewish. Is this what the confessional faith which you hold instructs you to do?
Tell you what, come to the party on Friday, step out from behind the computer, I am sure you will find it easier to be civil when your anonymity is gone.
Nick…
Nick Altman said this on December 7, 2008 at 8:55 pm |
1. Please, just give me a break. I found no indication in my Lewis & Short (or in any other Latin reference book) that “capitem” is a Latin word. Your attempt to cover up your error is both sloppy and surprising (especially when considering your pathetic attempts at using Latin throughout this discussion). Perhaps you should stick to two word phrases that preschoolers could put together (such as “pax christi”), you’ll fare better in the world of academia when people can see through your BS. If you could provide an “archaic” text that includes this particular term, please do so. But, since your attempt at “intelligence” is so transparent to anyone who has studied Latin at all, I doubt you’ll be able to. Capitem is NOT a standard deviation of capiam, no matter how much you may try to mask your glaring error. You should, instead, have written your phrase like this: “jus tui prominet, pinguidinem capere temptabo.” I also have no idea why in the hell you would choose to use the subjunctive mood; clumsy and pitiful indeed if your intent was to translate into the Latin the English phrase you had wished to. That is direct statement and using the subjunctive is yet another indication of your piss-poor Latin skills.
2. My terminology was carefully chosen to avoid offending all of your non-Latinist friends who I’m sure are trolling this blog. The last thing I need is bunch of hyped-up, uber-liberal elitists jumping into this discussion. You can barely keep it civil yourself.
3. I love you in Christ, I just don’t like you. It’s people like you, pseudo-academics, who have given Christianity a bad name. My side has kept quiet long enough. Your tactics are childish and weak and I have no interest in letting you get away with what, judging from your other posters, has been an easy ride for you in the blogosphere. My reference to your “junk” (as you so eloquently put it) drying up is two-fold; yes, it is a veiled reference to the covenant that obviously does not live within you. But, it is also a desire that you not procreate. The last thing the world needs is more “little Nicks” running around.
4. I imagine now that the “gloves are off” you will discontinue our “conversation.” It’s a shame because, much as I can’t stand you “personally,” I do very much enjoy sparring with anti-Christian liberals.
TR4LIFE said this on December 7, 2008 at 9:19 pm |
This is like a rhetorical cage match–sheesh Louise.
Ham said this on December 7, 2008 at 9:36 pm |
And, right on cue–your little buddies jump through your hoop of heresy to come to your defense. Figures. The only thing they don’t quite know is that it’s the fire of hell that awaits them on the other side.
TR4LIFE said this on December 7, 2008 at 9:39 pm |
Since it appears you won’t be responding any longer, I have one final point to make (upon reviewing the entirety of our discussion). Your denial of the Confession is blasphemy at the highest level. Are you familiar with the angel of the Lord in Judges? He was revealing portions of the WCF to the Israelites. The reason that Israel was judged was because they let a woman interpret that revelation (again, portions of the WCF). If the account of the Fall has taught us anything, it is that women are inherently the weaker sex, more prone to sin and vice then men. This, along with other Scriptural evidence, is why they would be relegated to the home and kept utterly silent in church. That is why Christians today are being punished.
TR4LIFE said this on December 7, 2008 at 10:05 pm |
Again, and for the last time; you obviously have some training in Latin just not as much as you think. For instance you probalby also don’t think that “fhefhaked” is latin…but it is
Here is a page I found on some basic Archaisms
You will notice that many of the spellings have changed, even for simple verbs. Unfortunatly I cant find a webpage that has the form I am speaking of, (at least without a lot more looking than I care to do to answer towards your pedantic charges) but thats ok. I do owe you an apology for one thing; I looked in Cassell’s and the form isn’t referenced (I don’t have a L&S, so I will take your word for it). I did however find numerous references in Cortney’s work if you care to buy a copy (or if you have it already.)
Also, the subjunctive mood is correct, when one is wishing or hoping to do something (its known as an opatative subjunctive)
But you are right about one thing…I don’t really care to “discuss” this anymore. The nature of the discussion was hostile to begin with and has continued to grow. I don’t find it (the discussion) or you particuarly edifying. Not to mention the racial comments and general nastiness of which you seem to feel is justified. You demonstrate neither love nor like and while you are correct that I have kept it civil – you have not.
Again, you are invited to come to the party on friday. I don’t think you are interested in a discussion so that may be out but I also have a gym behind my house with mats and gloves; if you really want to spar with liberals (and just so you don’t misunderstand I mean friendly sparring – perhaps it can help you get some of this pent up agrression out.)
Pax Christi…NIck
Nick Altman said this on December 7, 2008 at 10:07 pm |
I’m sorry, but where is “capitem” in that site? Even if it were there, it’s absurd to use non-standardized Latin when writing to someone like you did. Admit you made a mistake, or you’re just affirming my insult to your manhood (or, again “junk”). Also, your English translation of that phrase was not optative at all; you never said “I wish that…” or “may this…” which is the standard use of the Latin subjunctive. (Maybe you should look up the Latin word “opto,” from which our word “optative” is derived.) Your statement was declarative and factual, not wishful and potential. I also find it so convenient that you were unable to find capitem used anywhere in Latin literature; this affirms my point yet again: you know little Latin.
Finally, I will be at your party. I do not fear people like you because I’m great in writing, but I’m astonishing in person. Be prepared.
TR4LIFE said this on December 7, 2008 at 10:15 pm |
Oh, and I guess you either didn’t see, or chose (conveniently) to ignore, my remark directly above your last reply.
TR4LIFE said this on December 7, 2008 at 10:15 pm |
LOL…I dont care that you are a mysogynist…
See you friday
Nick Altman said this on December 7, 2008 at 10:23 pm |
TR4LIFE said this on December 8, 2008 at 5:20 am |