Free Theology Courses, Master and Doctor degree

Hi Tony,

I was neither offended by your remarks, nor did I take it as an attack on my faith at all. With the limitations of this text-based enviroment, I can see how you would get the impression that I was defensive. I apologize for any misimpression that I may have given.

You are right that the LDS view of the relationship between the authority of the church and the authority of the Bible has some similarlies to the Catholic view--as opposed to the Protestant view. However, it is my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church does not view the Pope as a prophet who receives modern revelation. As a non-Catholic, I may be in error here.

The organizational chart on the CARM website is an accurate representation and I should have acknowledged it as such. Unfortunately, the rest of the website is not nearly so accurate. I made the assumption (apparently incorrect) that you relied upon this site for information about the LDS faith beyond its organizational structure.

Best wishes

Tony Piña
Faculty, Cal State U. San Bernardino

 

Re: Re: more for Bill

Bill, I had said:


And as far as requiring obedience or introducing new dogmas: isn't that what denominationalism is all about.

You responded:

===
Brad, I think this is off the subject. The subject was , did Paul think his teaching was as authoritative as the OT. My argument is that he must as he considers his new dogmas authoritative and revealed.

===

I was simply saying that simply because one asserts a new authoritative dogma, does not mean that one is asserting themselves as authoritative as the OT. Each denomination or for that matter, pastor, or even you and I, have to make some decisions for which there is no clear biblical answer. We have the spirit of the text to guide us, along with whatever applicable scenarios from its pages we deem appropriate (such as an oxen eating from the grain it treads as a support for minsterial pay) - and we have the Spirit to guide us, but in the end we have to make a choice (at the very least to ourselves and sometimes to others).
For instance: you want to be authoritative in your position that James is referencing a group of OT texts...but you can't be sure. You believe it, and so do a great many other scholars - so I don't fault this belief, it may be right...but it's a choice to believe that, you don't have a specific OT text which proves that is what James was doing...

next I kind of lost you with the following statement:

Well again, if I want to argue with you about establishing new doctrine we can argue via the Fathers, or we can discuss it via the Bible.


I believe your original question was along the lines of "why are not these (non-canonical Jewish texts) quoted as much as the OT books.

My response was to say that even today, you and I appeal more to the Bible than we do to non-biblical sources such as the Church Fathers. We may still appeal to Augustine, or Jerome, or even more modern writers like Moo from time to time, but our greatest appeal will always be to the Bible. Likewise, when you ask why do the writers of the NT quote the OT more than other Jewish writers, I say for the same reason. The OT had more authority than other writers, so it was quoted more. That's all I was saying - sorry if my argument gets lost in my presentation...



next I quoted:

===

From Tyndale NT Commentary by Michael Green:

"This phrase, tas loipas graphas, can be taken in two main ways. 1) It may possibly distinguish Paul's letters from Scripture. See Bigg's note in loc. Thus in 1Thesalonians 4:13 hoi loipoi means 'others who are not Christians', not 'other Christians'. This make good sense....2)Alternatively, it may include Paul's letters in Scripture. This is an easier interpretation of the Greek." 160-161

and you responded:
===

As I said , in the Thess passage Paul uses the apparatus as "ones without hope" to differentiate the two groups. Peter does not use such. Therefore, the comparison is faulty.

===

Like I said earlier Bill, I probably agree with the second reading more, but the person writing this respected commentary does not simply dismiss the first option as you have, but rather states that it indeed "makes good sense". Perhaps there is more to this option than he reveals in the commentary, for if not surely he would have pointed out the fallacy inherent to the argument.


Again, I am not trying to state that Paul wasn't authoritative, I'm just unsure that he was declaring it. And because of what I percieve as ambiguity in James, I am not certain that Peter was declaring Scriptural authority for Paul either. Either way, my confidence in Paul is in no way diminished if feel that he was not declaring his work as Scripture.

On a separate note, and maybe for a separate thread (or PM) - what new dogma do you feel Paul was declaring? Since I have entered the world of research (and in so doing left behind many of 1st order theologies that I was taught in church) I find great continuity between Paul and the OT.

brad

 

Brad, female pastors, and yes, Bill...

Hey guys,

just a few comments. I think this is a healthy discussion about the James passage, and I think it would make a spectacular topic for a PhD dissertation. But I now know better than to cross swords with a couple of NT exegetes, bare before the degreeinfo community.

Brad, if you would like to know more about how Bill and I feel about female pastors, please see this thread .

Please note how stubborn Bill can be, and how notably and untouchably humble I am in the midst of intellectual conflict (is this sarcastic or what?).

Seriously, Brad, I think you are wrestling with some sincere and difficult prologomena issues. As a Christian, i do think you are obligated to fulfill your epistemic duties. Let me just say for now that I agree with your comment about making pastoral judgments. I think in some way the canon is shaped as a narrative, or a manifold-genre drama that teaches us to make those judgments wisely. I would say, personally, it is centrally important that those judgments be guided by a spirituality that is grounded in a dynamic, personal relationship with Christ that exhibits certain social, interrelational markers of maturity. So, yes, you can escape the water-tight use of "graphe" in NT use of the OT, but in the same way everything else can be made purely academic in comparison with our personal process of becoming reconciled with Jesus Christ. If that is what you are saying, I get it.

I attended a conference at Wheaton College for biblical theology in 2000. There, Christopher Seitz presented a critique of Peter Stuhlmacher. The point he made was against Stuhlmacher's use of tradition history as a category for biblical theology, given the dominant preference in the NT for the Masoretic tradition. Tradition history, at least in the tradition of G. von Rad, prefers multiple quasi-equal voices for gleaning a deposit of tradition. Seitz based that claim, in turn, on Beckwith, and Tov's text criticism. Those arguments turn on the use of "graphe" in the NT.

After the presentation, Stuhlmacher stood up, as any German critic would and said in his unmistakably German voice: "S'ank you Dr. Steitz... (pause, and in a deep and slower voice) I am still alife."

So, you see, one cannot use "graphe" as a glove to corner someone with who takes another version of biblical theology. However, I agree with the 50 over the 1, and I still stand on Seitz' side of that debate.

Chris

 

Re: Re: Re: To Zvavda

I just did the research. When I have time I may start working on it. I am doing a couple other things that are too time consuming..

 

Re: Re: Re: more for Bill

 

<<However, it is my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church does not view the Pope as a prophet who receives modern revelation. As a non-Catholic, I may be in error here.>>

The Pope is viewed as a prophet who receives modern revelation. Whenever he speaks "from the chair of Peter" it is considered infallible revelation, whether it be to clarify a past understanding or to implement new. An example would be their belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was sinless and was assumed into Heaven without tasting death. This is a dogmatic teaching of the church. Since the Bible does not say anything of the sort regarding this belief, it can be considered new revelation.

Tony

 

I'll be brief...

I feel like I'm seeing a tendency develop here Bill that I've seen in other theological discussions around here, where one simple question keeps evolving into several different rabbit trails, and if any one is not answered to your satisfaction you simply steer to a new trail. Case in point:



I responded to one of your questions with the following:


I believe your original question was along the lines of "why are not these (non-canonical Jewish texts) quoted as much as the OT books.

My response was to say that even today, you and I appeal more to the Bible than we do to non-biblical sources such as the Church Fathers. We may still appeal to Augustine, or Jerome, or even more modern writers like Moo from time to time, but our greatest appeal will always be to the Bible. Likewise, when you ask why do the writers of the NT quote the OT more than other Jewish writers, I say for the same reason. The OT had more authority than other writers, so it was quoted more. That's all I was saying - sorry if my argument gets lost in my presentation...



you responded with the following:
===
IMO, you are making a false assumption here which I would like you to support.

I believe your point was that perhaps James was quoting an esteemed but noncanonical book.

You say other NT writers do as well.

If you think that the NT writers used on occasion these esteemed but noncanonical books, as we today use nonbiblical sources as the fathers or modern experts, then show me several places where the NT writers do that.
===

Note your original question was merely "why are non-canonical sources not quoted from in the NT as often as the OT". Now I answered why, and you would probably agree with my answer that they were not quoted from as much as the OT for the OT was more authoritative.
But rather than agreeing with me, or even simply taking my answer for what it is worth to me, you now move on to demanding several instances of NT writers using non-canonical sources.
Note - I never asserted that the NT quotes from non-biblical sources in several places, my response was to your question of "why are they not quoted as often".



Lastly - In your previous thread, you rejected my idea that graphe might have a different meaning in James by saying something along the lines of - if it means inspired Scripture in the other 50+ times it is used in the NT then we must as exegetes take this common definition.

Of course, now, in your rejection of hoi lopoi you say the following:

===
Please understand that individual words are qualified by the context.

===

Bill I have no doubt that with your education and training you could argue circles around me...but I hope that is not your intent. If you ask me for why I believe something, take it at face value, if you disagree, tell me why...but really I don't see the profit for either of us in the way this thread has progressed.

Don't get me wrong, I like to be challenged, I like to go back to the text and verify, or modify my beliefs...and throughout most of this thread I have appreciated your input and our mutual thoughts on the subject.

But like I said, I have seen this tendency around here before. And its hard to put my finger on it; but I often see friendly discussion of what we believe pushed to the point of demands, and accusations...and once it gets there I don't know if anyone truly benefits...

For all of that, I still value your input, and look forward to future discussions...

brad

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Theology Courses, Master and Doctor degree

Wrong. Christian Theology is belief based on the preponderence of the evidence.

 

Re: I'll be brief...

 

fine Bill....

 

Re: fine Bill....

 

Re: Re: fine Bill....

Again Bill, my only point is that it is possible for the NT to quote from non-canonical sources, and that James may have been doing that as we find no direct quote in Scripture as what he has "quoted" in 4:5, and that therefore graphe might possibly refer to non-canonical writings as well...I'm not trying to say conclusively what Peter meant by graphe, or what James was quoting, just that for me some ambiguity exists in both instances. You seemed to be asserting that the NT never quotes from non-canonical sources to which I asked the following:


So again I ask Bill, how many non-canonical quotes must I find in the NT to support my position that sometimes the NT quotes from non-canonical sources?

and you replied:

===
No, any NT book will do where esteemed (ie by the NT writer) Jewish writings , not canonical, are cited.

===

I believe that there are two quotes in Jude that fit your requirement: one in verse 9 and a separate one in 14,15.

In addition - Paul even draws from a non-canonical, non-Jewish writer in the 12 verse of Titus. He uses it as part of his canonical argument, and says "This testimony is true". So he even found truth in non-Jewish writings, that were significant enough to include in his own...

There may be more out there...there may not, I honestly don't know...maybe you do

brad

 

Re: Re: Re: fine Bill....

===


Good job!

I appreciate you taking the effort and being willing to provide those.

Now, you see, I need to give more weight to the possibility that James could be citing a noncanonical book in 4:5.

 

Hello Bill,

I have not found much evidence of reliance upon non-canonical sources by the NT writers, but, admittedly, this has not been an area of study of mine. However, I have not been able to pinpoint the sources of three passages that are obvious quotes. Since you just happen to solicit three, I thought that you might be able to help me find my three:

Matt. 2:23
Jude 1:9
Jude 1:14-15

I am aware of eight or nine non-canonical historical and prophetic works that were utilized by OT writers, but I have never seen this as a problem, since they clearly referenced their sources. The three passages above, in contrast, do not tell us the source.

Tony

 

===


I believe they are from the book of Abraham? - sorry!

Tony I don't know the sources of those. Hope you are well.

 

Brad states:

Brad, just a clarification. I think it is important for me to point out here, as elsewhere, that the use of "graphe," whether it points to a noncanonical source in James 4:5, predominantly shows a preference for the OT writings in the TaNaK as authoritative OVER and against other options. The LXX, etc. are not quoted as "graphe" because, when an author in the NT refers to a writing in the OT as "graphe" it, with one exception, is a quotation that remains in the "scope" of the Masoretic tradition. They did not look at the broader tradition of books as "graphe." We can say this with (as you point out "almost") certitude.

The thing to emphasize here is that there were different families of texts that could have been drawn from. The LXX is certainly quoted, and quoted as graphe, but only when the text quoted is within the Masoretic family of texts, and not the broader, apocryphal or other books.

This historical choice needs to be taken into account when calculating the meaning of "graphe." If the use in James 4:5 refers, as you say "possibly," to a non-canonical book, it is indeed an anomaly given the resources the NT authors had to choose from.

chris

 

That wasn't totally clear. Let me say it again to try to be clear.

LXX is, at times, quote as "graphe." However, the "extra" books in the LXX are not. This shows, to my knowledge, that the dominant use of "graphe" remains within the Masoretic tradition. Interestingly enough, given the multicultural atmosphere in which the NT was written, it is very possible that the LXX was quoted as "graphe" while it is only being referenced as a translation, understood to be so by both author and early church reader.

The scope of the Masoretic tradition is the thing that a study of "graphe" aims at. There were other books. They are not preferred. This not only shows a preference for the Masoretic tradition, but a form of biblical theology in the early church that did not see revelation as deposited in traditions that are reflected in a variety of equally authoritative sources, but instead from one, dominant, and authoritative tradition. What's more, the "extra" sources in the LXX tradition are not quoted. There is little evidence, in my mind, to even show that the LXX was regarded as a kind of "corpus" (how we view it today) instead of a translation.

Whether the Masoretic tradition should be corrected because of its evolution in the Middle Ages is a different matter. All I'm saying here is that "graphe" shows a particular attitude toward "extra" books as lesser, and the narrowing of focus for authoritative sources for biblical theology in the early church. So I would be careful to not use "graphe" as an argument that there are "other" books that are valued. They simply aren't.

Chris

 

One more time:

The LXX is quoted as "graphe" in the NT. However, the "extra" books in the LXX are not.

This shows that "graphe" was understood to narrow the focus of authority to the scope that could be understood as referencing the Masoretic tradition.

This also shows that the LXX may not have been understood as a corpus, given the historical likelihood that it could have been utilized for other purposes (translation).

When you use "graphe" to say the early church had a "wider" understanding, I would contend with that. There is no supporting evidence for that, just the anomaly of James 4:5.

Chris

 

Hey Chris...BTW I tried to PM you but the box was full....

anyway I totally agree with your summary...As I have maintained (i believe) throughout the thread, I'm not sure what James intended by "graphe"...

And regardless of whether he meant "Scripture" and was "creating" a quote from a variety of OT sources, or whether he was using "graphe" to refer to a non-canonical source, either way I agree with your use of the term "anomaly" to describe the verse.

brad

 

Actually, the Enoch material is in the Book of Moses

Take care, my friend.

Tony