Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Intimations of Exegesis
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostOnce again this illustrates the need to understand the context and the society it was originally addressed to rather than to shoehorn it into our own cultural expectations and understandings.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThis is how I've always understood it, that the New Testament writers were engaging in a widely used and accepted style of Old Testament interpretation that looked for parallels rather than overt predictions, and that none of it would have been seen as unusual or suspicious by the contemporary audience.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostIs such form of interpretation thought to exclude the sense that certain prophecies were being overtly fulfilled in Christ?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostWell, no. But I think it's the case that a lot of what the New Testament writers cite as fulfilled prophecy was not explicitly predictive.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View Postone thing I heard ( a long time ago) was that the Jews had formed many expectations or requirements that they expected to be characteristic of the Messiah. So we might expect this of passages such as "out of Egypt I have called my Son" or that "he would be called a Nazarite." I believe that some specific types of miracles were expected of the Messiah -- probably of healing a person who was born blind. The drawback on this stuff I heard ... I don't have the original recording/lecture and I don't have scholarly sources.
Comment
-
Enns wrote a paper on Hosea 11:1 and Matthew's use (or repurposing?) of that verse, which on face value seems acontextual. He used to have it available for free on his website, but the link has expired. The title was Matthew and Hosea: A Response to John Sailhamer. Here's a response by Gregory
Beale: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...-715_Beale.pdf
On the outset, I will admit I think Enns has the better of this particular argument; that it is too much of a stretch to argue that Matthew's usage of Hosea remains in Hosea's context. My understanding of NT messianic prophecy is similar to that of MM above. This does not exclude the idea that God may have orchestrated some similarities in some cases, which I think is especially likely in the case of Isaiah 53.
Enns makes a big deal out of this issue in Inspiration and Incarnation, which strikes me as another example of his making a mountain out of what I don't even think is a molehill.Last edited by KingsGambit; 06-11-2019, 09:00 PM."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
McCartney and Enns ("Matthew and Hosea: A Response to John Sailhamer." WTJ 63 (2001 ) 97-105) note on page 103:
Hence, Matthew does not quote Hos 11:1 on the occasion of Jesus' return from literal Egypt, but regards it as fulfilled by Jesus' departure from Israel into Egypt. For Matthew, literal Israel has become "Egypt" and the king of literal Israel (Herod) is a new "Pharaoh" that tries to kill the promised deliverer by slaughtering infants, whereas literal Egypt becomes a place of refuge
It seems that the reference to Hosea 11 from Matt 2 would be used to point the reader of the gospel to the events in Hosea 11-14. For Matthew 2 to effectively point out the judgment in Hosea, the Jewish readers would have had to be receptive to the idea that Jesus coming out of Egypt was a bookmark into the similar statement in Hosea 11. This bookmark utilization makes better sense than assuming that the context of Hosea 11 is being interpreted as any clear indicator of the Messiah.
However, once it is recognized from Malachi and/or Micah, that the Messiah would come with judgments, then Hosea could be read in light of this.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostSeems to me that what Enns describes as Paul "winging it" is simply him practicing standard 2nd Temple Jewish Midrash, likely as taught to him by Gamaliel or through his vocation as a Pharisee. Imbuing Old Testament passages with a fuller meaning is Midrash 101.
Originally posted by Adrift View PostAnyhow, N.T. Wright deals with the "issue" Enns raises in his book Paul and the Faithfulness of God. It's very deep and lengthy, but a decent summary can be found on a blog post here. The following is a snippet:
The many individual stories in the Old Testament make up one large overarching narrative, sometimes called a meta-narrative (the story behind the stories). This ongoing narrative embodies Israels worldview.
In his analysis of this worldview, N.T. Wright points out that there really are three stories or three levels to the one story. We are looking at the story of Israel, but this story is part of the larger story of humanity. After all, this is where the Bible begins in Genesis 1-11, with the creation and ruin of the human race. The story of Israel only begins at the end of chapter 11, when Abraham enters the scene. Obviously, Israel is Gods pathway to redeeming humanity, in order to bring this broken story to a good ending. Behind the story of humanity lies yet another story, the story of creation, implying the cosmic or all-encompassing dimension of salvation history.
This way of looking at it is quite different from the Western approach to theology, which has majored in abstract ideas such as justification, sanctification, election, etc. The ideal was often to bring these ideas together in a more or less timeless system. With the Reformation and even more so with the Enlightenment, there also came a strong focus on the individual, making the central question: how do I (or how does a person) get saved? In contrast, Paul and his contemporaries thought of the community (Israel) before they thought of the individual, and they started with a story, not with abstract ideas.
A Story in Search of an Ending
The problem of course is that Israels story is broken as well. Israel fails in its mission as the agent to bring salvation to the world; instead, it suffers judgement and exile. The question therefore becomes how God will bring this story to a good ending, because he has promised to do so. Obviously then, Israels story is a story in search of an ending.
. . .
Paul therefore does not take this as yet another exhortation for Israel to obey the law, but as referring to a whole new ballgame. The word to be obeyed is now in their heart, not just on tables of stone. Leviticus 18:5 states the general principle behind the law as it was valid for the phase before the exile (the old ballgame). In Pauls view, this exile stage has just come to an end and the restoration phase has begun. Deuteronomy 30 is located in this new phase, in which Israels inability to keep the law has been dealt with. There is therefore a narrative sequence, a story, involved.
Once we see this, we understand how Paul can quote the law to back up grace. Paul is not mining the Old Testament for proof texts, for isolated incidences, statements, and examples he can put to use for his own purposes. He has not taken his proof text out of context at all; on the contrary, he has noticed that the context has changed something I expect most of us have missed (I certainly have). He has noticed that Deuteronomy 30 belongs to a different part of the narrative map: this goes with the time of restoration.
It is something to be aware of: often, in quoting Scripture, Paul does the opposite of isolating a proof text from its original context and putting all the weight on a single verse (or two), regardless of whether the verse can really carry that weight! On the contrary: often, the short quote serves as a signpost to something much larger: the longer passage of which it is part, an overarching narrative (which is the case here), or a big theological idea (as in those two words in Christ; not a quote, to be sure, but still a world of biblical thought condensed in just two words).
Paul recognizes in the death and resurrection of Christ the beginning of the new phase, and therefore in the gospel the word that has to be received and believed. Paul finds further support for this in the prophets: Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Joel 2:32, ESV, quoted in Rom. 10:13). Again, just one verse, but connecting us with and pointing to the whole prophetic concept of a new age and a restored creation.Enns, in usual Enns fashion, is simply making the Bible harder to read, and finding discrepancies where there really aren't any. I'm not looking forward to the day he apostates, and I pray that he doesn't, but I have a hard time seeing how he can remains in Christ if he continues to undermine scripture in this fashion over and over again. What you cited from him was written in 2016, here he was in 2017. Only God know where his heart is today, but I hope the Holy Spirit moves in him heavily, and that God brings helpful friends and peers into his life to help answer his questions and get him back on track again.
Enns has also interacted with Wright's books, shared the panel with Wright, etc. He's clearly quite along in his spiritual journey by now, sharing his wisdom, and acknowledging and underscoring the uncertainty we find ourselves in. I will continue to be challenged by and benefit from his material despite disagreeing along the way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostEnns' article that I linked to in the OP is titled: It's safe to assume Peter Enns is familiar with "Midrash 101".
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostI think Enns is basically sharing his scholarly considerations and conclusions at this point in time, after extensive study and subsequent teaching at the seminary and doctoral levels (Westminster Theological Seminary, Princeton Theological Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, Fuller Theological Seminary, Lutheran Theological Seminary, and Biblical Theological Seminary).
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostEnns has also interacted with Wright's books, shared the panel with Wright, etc.
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostHe's clearly quite along in his spiritual journey by now, sharing his wisdom, and acknowledging and underscoring the uncertainty we find ourselves in.
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostI will continue to be challenged by and benefit from his material despite disagreeing along the way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYes, you linked to one of his articles, and then quoted it at the top of the page
That previous article was linked to in:
Ok? I'm sure that's all Bart Ehrman was doing with Forged as well.
Great! Then I suppose there's not really an issue then.
You should have started with Enns' interaction with Wright rather than a blog post that suggests Paul is winging things by pitting Deuteronomy against Leviticus.
It is not at all clear to me that Enns is quite along in his spiritual journey unless that journey is on it's way out of the faith. And I certainly don't share that journey. I don't struggle with the fears, uncertainty, and doubts that he seems to suffer from. Certainly not to the extent that he does.
That's your prerogative, of course, but how it comes across on these forums is you struggling with scripture
and allowing Enns to add to your confusion and own uncertainties and doubts. If that isn't what's going on, if instead, Enns work is strengthening your faith, and putting to rest any uncertainties, then great, but that's not how it reads to at least a few of us on the other side of the screen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostThat previous article was linked to in:
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostBart Ehrman's scholarship brings to light many true and accurate things. One could certainly benefit from his writings as well.
If only that were all he was doing... Ehrman clearly has an agenda in his writings, and one could be (and plenty have been) led out of their faith in large part to his own frustrations with the text, and manipulation of the data. As C Michael Patton concludes in his review of Forged,
The fact that you're defending Ehrman's scholarship as merely "[bringing] to light many true and accurate things" is, I don't know...I think it's sad really. I'd expect that sort of response from a skeptic, but if you've read anything by Ehrman, you know there's more going on than simply bringing to light many true and accurate things. Ehrman has ulterior motives, and those motives include intentionally dirtying the waters of NT scholarship, and attempting to make it out to be a barely comprehensible mess.
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostDoubts, confusion, and uncertainty are all the result of my bible reading and critical thinking. Peter Enns confirms to me that I am not alone. Perhaps you are far above most of this, but I certainly have my doubts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostActually, it isn't.
The link is dead
If only that were all he was doing...
Ehrman clearly has an agenda in his writings
I'm not sure how Ehrman responded, or would respond to that. People have deconverted after reading the bible. Those who want to deconvert will eventually find a way. I imagine if someone reads nothing but Ehrman (and other skeptics of his ilk), they're simply looking for intellectual justification to deconvert. I've never advocated that someone read only one scholar or one brand of scholarship; quite the opposite, actually.
The fact that you're defending Ehrman's scholarship as merely "[bringing] to light many true and accurate things" is, I don't know...I think it's sad really.
I'd expect that sort of response from a skeptic
but if you've read anything by Ehrman, you know there's more going on than simply bringing to light many true and accurate things.
Ehrman has ulterior motives, and those motives include intentionally dirtying the waters of NT scholarship, and attempting to make it out to be a barely comprehensible mess.
If you're struggling with doubt and confusion about scripture or your faith, then reading Peter Enns isn't going to build you up.
It's not going to edify you.
It's merely going to pile on to the doubts and confusion you already have.
Sure, misery loves company
but if all you want to do is commiserate with Enns
then I don't see how that's helpful at all. I really don't get why you're not getting this, or why you seem to want doubt, confusion, and uncertainty to be a result of your Bible reading and critical thinking.
Especially when there are plenty of phenomenal Biblical scholars out there who can answer your questions, and bring clarity and understanding to your reading of scripture.
Enns is drowning in his own doubts and fears
and all he's doing is dragging his readers down with him.
Comment
-
Adrift: Feel free to respond to the above, but I will discontinue the conversation at this point as quarreling seems inevitable. Thanks for your care and concern and any prayers you offer on my behalf. I will strive to do the same for you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostI imagine that equally applies to Christian apologists.
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostI'm not sure how Ehrman responded, or would respond to that. People have deconverted after reading the bible. Those who want to deconvert will eventually find a way. I imagine if someone reads nothing but Ehrman (and other skeptics of his ilk), they're simply looking for intellectual justification to deconvert. I've never advocated that someone read only one scholar or one brand of scholarship; quite the opposite, actually.
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostI think every sober minded Christian will admit to gnawing doubt and uncertainty of some form. Peter Enns just vocalizes a lot of what we tend to internalize and keep to ourselves.
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostYet disagreements abound even among those you deem "phenomenal biblical scholars". Moreover, answers to issues that you personally find convincing may not be equally the case for myself or others. But I do advocate that people search far and wide for answers, consulting different scholars.
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostI think he is making peace with his doubts and accepting human uncertainty and fallibility.
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostAdrift: Feel free to respond to the above, but I will discontinue the conversation at this point as quarreling seems inevitable.
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostThanks for your care and concern and any prayers you offer on my behalf. I will strive to do the same for you.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
5 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-28-2024, 05:40 PM | ||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
369 responses
17,394 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-27-2024, 01:18 PM
|
Comment