Here's the new link:
http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc318/
Christ the Center is for the most part a good programme. I listen regularly. It's a good way to keep up on trends in the Reformed and particularly the Presbyterian world. There are some shows that are inspiring and others I completely disagree with, but it's always interesting.
This show didn't disappoint but I have to say I am
constantly struck by the effect of embracing the Critical Text. To me, that
simply undercuts the ability to hold your Bible and know it is the Word of God.
The average person, the plowman no longer can have any confidence. He must rely
on scribes and masters who will work through the 'variants' and try and
'discover' the true text. The theology behind this is unworthy of those
claiming to be Calvinists.
This show concerning the issue of Canon was much better. In
the wake of the DaVinci Code and the popularity of assigning the canon to the
late 4th century, this programme helps develop a solid understanding
of the issues and what Biblical critics are choosing to ignore.
I saw this awhile ago, but it's the right move to speak of Canon as a theological statement.
ReplyDeleteYet I don't have problems with textual criticism or juggling multiple 'editions' and manuscripts that come out. It doesn't place this within the realm of the scholar anymore than the fact that Scripture is translated does. At one level, all these manuscripts and their differences elucidate aspects and can expand understanding. However, at the end of the day, it's the that the text is Inspired, or as I might say it, bound & edited by the Holy Spirit. That's why I acknowledge maybe John 8 wasn't in the earliest text (maybe it was), but it's still inspired.
That's why things like the Chicago Statement and those types of inerrancies are bogus. We don't have Original Autographs, anymore that Q is a some common source for Matt., Mark, and Luke, so why waste time trying to prove they're literally perfect.
At the end of the day, the concern for the 'plowman' isn't worth having. The Scripture is a translated text, and the words chosen, whether literally or to convey the idea, are always in flux. Sometimes the idea from Hebrew or Greek is hard to carry into English or whatever language. There is no epistemological certainty, but that's ok. The text is infallible as a witness, and only through 'opened eyes' do we see that the Law and the Prophets, and the Apostolic Tradition (gospels, epistles etc.) testify to the Messiah.
That's enough I think
Cal
Well I know where you're coming from but as you might expect I don't agree at all. John 7.53-8.11 are certainly inspired verses. The texts that are missing it should be rejected. I appreciate the 'expansion' viewpoint that says by using more texts we get more info etc..., but the notion that the Church has had the wrong text until the late 19th century is completely untenable. To embrace those texts is to negate the whole concept of a Providentially preserved canon.
DeleteQ is a figment of the imagination, a character on Star Trek not a source document. I'm glad I spent some time at seminary looking into Textual Criticism. It reminded me of taking psychology in college. It was eye opening. You suddenly realize about 95% of it is completely made up, arguments built on unsubstantiated assumptions.
I appreciate the tangles regarding language, translation and cultural context in terms of interpretation. The internal witness of the Spirit is critical, but I believe that once the foundations are laid, the metaphysical presuppositions are established we can apprehend the Truth and understand the message God is communicating to us.
Of course the "restorationist" claim is ridiculous. Whether it comes in the form of a teacher, or a text, or whatever, it attacks the catholicity of the faith. Whether its Swedenborgism, or German Higher-Criticism that culminated in the so-called "Quest for the Historical Jesus", it makes a mockery of providence.
DeleteYet the "expansion" viewpoint (as you call it), allows for the workings of men, all under the purview of a motherly Providence. Certain teachers over history have given language to a concept in Scripture, but it doesn't mean it wasn't there previously or things were incomplete until then. I'm thinking of Tertullian with Trinitas or Luther with the solas.
In the same way, new texts shed light, but not in the way that things were wrong or misunderstood previously. I don't need a pristine text to believe in the infallibility of Scripture. I'm not sure what you mean about the foundations established lay the ground for metaphysics. Could you clarify?
Cal
I thought you meant that by incorporating the Critical Text we can get some new angles on how to interpret verses etc... which is a view many would hold. That's what I was disagreeing with.
DeleteI see what you mean in paragraph 3. You're probably a little more friendly to the Critical Text(s) than I would be, but with your qualification that it's not to correct an older text, I can appreciate that.
Along the same lines, I would say we can learn things and find elucidation by looking to Jewish commentaries etc... They're not authoritative but can be helpful.
Lightfoot's Commentary on the NT from the Talmud and Hebraica is very helpful. Of course that's using extra-OT. The OT is not the problem with regard to the texts. The battle is over the NT.
I believe that the argument for Canon rests in the person and work of Christ. He validates the OT and commissions the NT (as it were).
Language is a tangled labyrinth. Many theologians argue the fact that God communicated to us by word means that our knowledge is tied to propositional forms. That's how we 'do' theology.
I'm still working on all this. I've got about 40 pages of notes for what will probably a book length project. I'm trying to work through the whole language question. I don't think Wittgenstein and Hegel are helpful in understanding the Bible but they can be helpful and provocative in terms of thinking about how we think...especially about language.
Unlike some of my brethren I would try and make a subtle distinction between apprehension and comprehension. I don't believe as they do that through propositional logic and syllogism we gain knowledge and can parse and expand and build a coherent system. I don't think that's what we're supposed to do at all.
I would focus on apprehension and subjugation. I think we can grasp the meaning of what God is saying but we're so limited in our understanding that we are forced (and happy for it) to rely closely on what God has given us.
I wasn't saying that foundations lay the ground for metaphysics. I was reiterating. The presuppositional foundations are a metaphysical category. We root our epistemology in a metaphysical foundation...God's word. And since he speaks to us, the nature of knowledge is word based but the words themselves are transcendent. He is speaking to us of the mysteries of heaven. And yet for us to understand much of it is expressed in tangible space-time forms. We can grasp, we can apprehend, but I don't think we can't put it in the laboratory and start dissecting it.
So in a sense I can agree that we don't have epistemological certainty.... but it depends what you mean by certainty.
We do have it, but it's rooted in Christ and our faith that His Word is true.
We don't have it in the sense that we can be confident that our formulations and attempts at coherence are valid. That I'm uncomfortable with.
Yes, in that sense I guess I tend toward a form mysticism...but certainly not an anti-intellectual or completely subjective form.
Epistemology and the question of language and words fascinates me. I should probably read Wittgenstein in this regard. I'd love to read anything you've put together regarding this. If you can email it, I'd appreciate it.
DeleteJacques Ellul wrote something in regards to knowledge and words called "Humiliation of the Word". Most of it went over my head, but he made some good points. Worth a glance.
The certainty on formulations and attempts to make systems was what i was after. There's no guarantee there, but there is with the Messiah.
Cal
It's a ways off. Right now it's still in notes. Right when I think I'm ready to start working on it I either get distracted or run into something new that makes me put the brakes on and start re-thinking.
DeleteIt fascinates me too. I'm not a fan of B. Russell or the entire Analytic School, but I certainly respect him. He was brilliant. It's interesting to read about his attempts to explain logic and mathematics... kind of like explaining the words we use in logic into math. I think ultimately he was correct even though he couldn't resolve and explain it to his satisfaction.
By saying he's correct I would only mean it in the sense that therefore logic is in itself a form of empiricism which I think is a critical point to work out in terms of the whole theological project. The Thomist would say, yeah, so what? Well I'm not a Thomist...at all.
Is that Ellul piece in a book or can I find it somewhere? Like I told you I found Anarchy and Christianity to be a big disappointment...theologically. But otherwise he was obviously brilliant, keen and has much to offer.
I agree with what you're saying about system-certainty. It's the whole issue of coherence. For most people that's the key. I don't think so. I think there's a degree of coherence but that's not what we're after. If we seek coherence, we are (to me) subjugating revelation to our understandings of coherence. If coherence is rooted in our ability to form and frame words into verbal formulas....syllogisms and so forth....boy oh boy, that seems to me to be a tricky prospect. It seems like we're always going to be trapped in reductionisms or could get into big trouble the other way....out of control speculation.
Fascinating stuff. It literally can keep me up at night.
I don't know how you are with audio stuff. I have a lot of time to listen to things while I'm working, but if you go to BBC Podcasts there's a programme called 'In Our Time'....it's great. They do a lot of shows of history, philosophy and theology. If you page through there you'll find some really interesting shows on Wittgenstein, Hegel, Analytic v. Continental philosophy etc...
Epistemology mystifies me and much of it blow me on my back if not clear over my head. It is utterly fascinating though.
DeleteWhen I first understood Plato's doctrine of Recollection I laughed at its seeming juvenility. But I understand the reason for his move, he's trying to cut through the endless complexities about logic, memory, learning, and understanding. Of course it's not true, but the world outside is spooky. Thankfully Wisdom Incarnate offers rest in the maelstrom.
Yeah I'm no fan of syllogisms for systematizing and boxing Scripture. It's presented as a story, a narrative, for a reason.
I'm not big on listening, but I'll check it out. Whenever you get something together, I'd eagerly check it out.
Cal
The Ellul work is a book, it's semi-lengthy, but it's free online: http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=499
DeleteI guess I've got to break down and get some kind of reader. I don't like reading books on the regular computer screen. My wife has eye problems and was given a Kindle. It's great because she increase the size of the font. I'm still semi-hostile to readers and smartphones, even mobile phones.
ReplyDeleteBut, there's just so much I could read if I had one of those things!
There's that constant tug and pull in the history of philosophy....
ReplyDeleteWhat's primary the senses or the mind that interprets them?
Plato v. Aristotle
Rationalism v. Empiricism
Idealism v. Materialism
Continental v. Analytic
The whole Anglo-American tradition went to the Empiricist side in the 1600-1700s. Other than the British Idealists of course. There's some really interesting stuff with those chaps. The Romantics which would include some Brits also resisted Empiricism but by the 1800s that's the default. The Scottish Common Sense school is an interesting mix...big influence here.
Contra Bertrand Russell and Popper (not to mention most conservative Protestant theologians)I'm far more interested in the other side. That puts me in a weird place....Bible adherence but non-analytic. That's certainly where Ellul was coming from (minus the strict Bible views).
I'm not saying I'm into Kant or Hegel....but just the general mind primacy way of thinking. Sproul speaks of the primacy of the intellect....by which he means (I think) empiricism. He wouldn't want to put it that way of course.
It's interesting but it seems to be the whole Evidentialist v. Presuppositionalist debate is really the same as the analytic v. continental.
This guy does a good job summarizing some of the differences:
http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2010/09/analytic-versus-continental-philosophy.html