|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Unto Us a Child is Born
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: John 12:38-41..It is clearly not the intent of John to prove the authorship of Isaiah in that passage, and to insert significance where the author intended none is again, I would argue, more disrespectful of the text than it is respectful.
So the Devil is in the detail..rather than the Holy Spirit?
[ 17. December 2017, 20:20: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Good grief!
I've accused Jamat of binary thinking in the past. Now he has exceeded himself.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The conversation seems to have moved on, but I was attempting (clearly unsuccessfully) to make a joke feigning offense as an Orthodox at the idea that the LXX isn't the sole acceptable version of the OT.
And that was clear to some of us. I can’t account for some others.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Perhaps we don't get irony on this side of the Pond ...
We have been hoist with our own petards.
Now New Zealand ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Eutychus: John 12:38-41..It is clearly not the intent of John to prove the authorship of Isaiah in that passage, and to insert significance where the author intended none is again, I would argue, more disrespectful of the text than it is respectful.
So the Devil is in the detail..rather than the Holy Spirit?
I learned a slightly different variation of the ditty to Gamaliel:
#wonderful things in the Bible I see
some of them put there by you and by me#
The devil is, amongst other things, in the personal biases we perspective mistakenly impose on the text - all of us. Which is why I think taking time to consider the author's intent is a worthwhile exercise.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The conversation seems to have moved on, but I was attempting (clearly unsuccessfully) to make a joke feigning offense as an Orthodox at the idea that the LXX isn't the sole acceptable version of the OT.
Is outrage!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Eutychus: John 12:38-41..It is clearly not the intent of John to prove the authorship of Isaiah in that passage, and to insert significance where the author intended none is again, I would argue, more disrespectful of the text than it is respectful.
So the Devil is in the detail..rather than the Holy Spirit?
I learned a slightly different variation of the ditty to Gamaliel:
#wonderful things in the Bible I see
some of them put there by you and by me#
The devil is, amongst other things, in the personal biases we perspective mistakenly impose on the text - all of us. Which is why I think taking time to consider the author's intent is a worthwhile exercise.
Whatever you put there, you must account for yourself. My comment concerns what is plainly already there. The author's intent is not the issue here.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Perhaps we don't get irony on this side of the Pond ...
Reports of Eastponders "getting" irony have been inflated of late, it's true.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Whatever you put there, you must account for yourself. My comment concerns what is plainly already there. The author's intent is not the issue here.
Have you never read a verse of Scripture in a new light and realised that it might not be saying what you had thought it said up till then?
If you think your reading of Scripture is simply "what is plainly already there" and nothing else, even when challenged, in my experience you might be missing a lot.
What do you make, for instance, of Mark's "plain" misattribution of Malachi to Isaiah in Mark 1:2-3 mentioned by Stejjie earlier?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Perhaps we don't get irony on this side of the Pond ...
Reports of Eastponders "getting" irony have been inflated of late, it's true.
And New Zealanders?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: What do you make, for instance, of Mark's "plain" misattribution of Malachi to Isaiah in Mark 1:2-3 mentioned by Stejjie earlier?
He's wrong. There is no misattribution. The reference was originally from Isaiah 40:3, which Malachi amplified.
How is this relevant to What I posted regarding John 12?
To me it is very clear. Isaiah said two separate things which John refers to, that were said by the same bloke, not two blokes.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well batted, Jamat.
I still don't see, though, why John 12 requires us to insist on a single authorship for Isaiah and why, if there were several 'Isaiah's over an extended period, writing pseudonymously as part of his 'school', this somehow undermines the integrity of the text or makes God the Holy Spirit out to be a liar?
On a more general point, I'd be interested to know what you make of what seems to be as a very balanced and sensible take from Nick Tamen as a broadly Reformed perspective.
He appears to be coming from a reasonably conservative Protestant perspective, but somehow I suspect his view-point wouldn't pass muster from your more rigidly fundamentalist perspective ...
But I'd be interested in your reactions to what strikes me as an eminently sensible post on his part.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Eutychus: What do you make, for instance, of Mark's "plain" misattribution of Malachi to Isaiah in Mark 1:2-3 mentioned by Stejjie earlier?
He's wrong. There is no misattribution. The reference was originally from Isaiah 40:3, which Malachi amplified.
How is this relevant to What I posted regarding John 12?
To me it is very clear. Isaiah said two separate things which John refers to, that were said by the same bloke, not two blokes.
If you accept that when Mark says "Isaiah" he means "Isaiah, as later amplified by Malachi"* (total: two blokes), surely by the same logic you should have no difficulty entertaining the idea that when John says "Isaiah" that might cover more than one author?
==
*And note, "later amplified by Malachi" is not "plainly already there" in the text
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
There is no meaningful sense in which Malachi 3 can be said to be an amplification of Isaiah 40. Although both are connected with a coming of the Lord, they have quite different emphases and expectations.
There is an interesting discussion of the Mark/Isaiah/Malachi question (from a more conservative perspective) by Rikk E. Watts who is professor of New Testament studies at Regent College in Vancouver. The case seems to me, prima facie, to be plausible.
It avoids the problem of the Gospel being in error, although in order to do so it has to get round what to me at least looks like the plain meaning of scripture. It is not on the face of it obvious that when Mark says Isaiah, he means Malachi and Isaiah. Indeed if the suggestion is accepted, then in other case if he said Isaiah he might equally well mean Zechariah and Isaiah, or Habakkuk and Isaiah.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
L quote:
Bro James: There is no meaningful sense in which Malachi 3 can be said to be an amplification of Isaiah 40.
Not sure why there’s a problem Isaiah wrote pre-exilic, Malachi, post. Malachi added to and clarified Isaiah. Mark went with original authority. All were inspired writers. Nothing is subtracted from original reference by Isaiah. No writer contradicts others.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Well having read both Malachi 3 and Isaiah 40 I can’t see how the text of Malachi 3 is a commentary on or clarification of Isaiah 40. I can see how in theory, in a most general way it might in principle be argued that Malachi as a whole is somehow a commentary on Isaiah as a whole - but that is not what the text says (and I’ve not seen anyone make that case). It simply sticks two verses together and ascribes the result to Isaiah.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
[x-post]
Jamat, nobody said anything about contradiction in the quoted content.
However, if as you allege, Malachi "added to" Isaiah, then there are two authors involved, whereas Mark cites only one.
If you think inspiration can legitimately allow "Isaiah" in the text of Mark to mean "Malachi amplifying Isaiah", I can't see, logically, why you seem to think "Isaiah" in the text in John can only mean "[one individual] Isaiah."
[ 18. December 2017, 19:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
There is an interesting discussion of the Mark/Isaiah/Malachi question (from a more conservative perspective) by Rikk E. Watts who is professor of New Testament studies at Regent College in Vancouver. The case seems to me, prima facie, to be plausible.
Well, sort of, but I got put off by the pop-up asking me to donate to support the work of the Gospel Coalition ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) whose hermeneutics I flirted at one time with before deeming them intellectually dishonest.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Storm in a teacup. Grant that all writers are inspired and bounce off one another and no issue is evident. Relevant point for here is that Mark is not wrong. Interesting that KJV just says Prophet. That’s a nice splice.
It is evident in Jn 12 that 2 statements are attributed to ONE author. It is completely irrelevant to this that Mark chooses to cite Isaiah via Malachi.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Hmm. Having Googled a little, I guess I might feel the same, though I've not explored their hermeneutic in any depth. I was more going for the content than the source. At the level Rikk Watts is working with in that piece, I'm not sure that TGC's overall hermeneutic comes much into play.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Storm in a teacup. Grant that all writers are inspired and bounce off one another and no issue is evident. Relevant point for here is that Mark is not wrong. Interesting that KJV just says Prophet. That’s a nice splice.
It is evident in Jn 12 that 2 statements are attributed to ONE author. It is completely irrelevant to this that Mark chooses to cite Isaiah via Malachi.
He is not citing Isaiah via Malachi. He is citing Malachi and Isaiah and attributing both texts to Isaiah.
Also if you'd read the first paragraph of the article I linked, you would have seen the KJV reading acknowledged and sourced, and the reason on sound text-critical grounds for accepting that the original reading was Isaiah quote:
Two early manuscripts and all the later Byzantine ones also saw the problem, rescuing (presumably) Mark’s credibility by changing “in Isaiah” to “in the prophets.” Interestingly, the most reliable and earliest manuscripts and their earliest translations did not make that adjustment. Although it is possible that no one else saw the difficulty, it seems more likely that they left “Isaiah” unchanged because they either felt it inappropriate to tamper with the text or did not in fact see a problem. And if the latter, why not?
I'm not at this point arguing whether Mark was right or wrong - I'm seeking to address the hermeneutical process by which we interpret and understand him.
Whether we accept Rikk Watts' or your account for why Mark is not 'wrong', in each case we are interpreting the text to mean something other than the plain words alone say, by bringing to our reading of the text something that comes from entirely outwit the Biblical text itself - namely either our understanding of contemporaneous literary conventions, or a belief that Malachi expands on Isaiah, and that it is therefore appropriate to refer to Malachi as if it was Isaiah.
In either case we are bringing something else to the interpretive process to understand the words in a different sense to their apparent plain meaning.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I still don't see why it's such a big deal. It only becomes so if we insist on a particular view of scriptural inerrancy.
One Isaiah, Two Isaiah's, One Isaiah Than The Other One ...
How does it alter anything if there were several prophets whose writings compiled under the general attribution to Isaiah son of Amoz?
Some material will be pre-exilic, some post ...
They'll all have been addressing issues pertinent to their own day in a way which, as Nick Tamen says, contributed to the development of Jewish ideas of the Messiah which the Christians 'recognised' as relating to Christ or which they applied to Christ.
That applies equally if we put an early, pre-exilic date to these prophecies or we see them as part of a developing tradition that spanned the exile and continued into the time of Christ.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Storm in a teacup. Grant that all writers are inspired and bounce off one another and no issue is evident.
Except when you need a proof-text for the single authorship of the book of Isaiah, apparently, when it becomes the "evident", "plain meaning" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Interesting that KJV just says Prophet. That’s a nice splice.
I was just about to cite the same piece of the article as BroJames, more specifically, this bit quote:
Two early manuscripts and all the later Byzantine ones also saw the problem, rescuing (presumably) Mark’s credibility by changing “in Isaiah” to “in the prophets.”
Are you trying to say that it's ok for people to fudge the translation if it makes the result more amenable to your views, or are you going to defend the KJV on the time-honoured grounds that "if it's good enough for the apostle Paul, it's good enough for me"?
(BroJames, I'm not saying that article in particular is not intellectually dishonest, just that it has that familiar feel of trying to force an explanation to justify an a priori assumption. Reminds me of the guy I heard do a tour de force explaining how all the Gospel accounts of the resurrection could all be perfectly harmonised [and who also performed a similar exegetical feat to fully rehabilitate every single one of the Judges on the basis that they were commended in Hebrews 11...])
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Yes. I know what you mean. If I was going to be rigorous, I'd be looking for examples of the convention clearly in operation - I have (for the sake of this discussion) taken Rikk Watts' argument on trust.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Let me just clarify for the avoidance of doubt that I have absolutely no settled view on the authorship (multiple or otherwise) of Isaiah.
What I'm sure about is that John referring to Isaiah as he does is going to be carrying virtually zero weight in any view I end up taking.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: except when you need a proof-text for the single authorship of the book of Isaiah, apparently, when it becomes the "evident", "plain meaning
Now you seem to be importing back story from previous discussions. I do not need to prove anything or justify anything. Nor do I proof text. Isaiah is Prima facie one single voice. The Rabbis believe so and so do many Christian scholars. The ones that do not have a naturalistic agenda. No one has proved otherwise, nor can they.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Put it this way - if Mark referring to Isaiah can mean Malachi and Isaiah, then John referring to Isaiah could mean another author and Isaiah.
In the case of Malachi it is still known as a separate text in the canon. The merging of Isaianic authors could have pre-dated the canon, and left nothing other than literary traces. (This is believed to be true (in a rather different way) of a number of works referred to in the 'Deuteronomistic History', but otherwise unknown.)
Of course people differ about the significance of some kinds of literary features. The work of Robert Alter, and the narrative critical approach has shown that what earlier critics saw as signs of redactorial activity may be better explained as features of OT narrative techniques and style. And personally I am largely sceptical of the attempts to identify editorial joining of different letters in (e.g.) the Corinthian letters. I'm not familiar with the arguments around multiple Isaianic authorship, and maybe I would find them unconvinicng too.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Jamat, you said quote:
To me, John 12 : 38-41 is textual confirmation that the book of Isaiah DOES have one author.
By the same token the Mark citation is textual confirmation that Malachi is also written by Isaiah. (Or alternatively that Malachi is some kind of patchwork including, in the passage cited by Mark, some words by the prophet Isaiah)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Bro James: Put it this way - if Mark referring to Isaiah can mean Malachi and Isaiah, then John referring to Isaiah could mean another author and Isaiah.
Not sure how that makes any sense. Mark can quote The OT to include Malachi but cite the original authority or source..common practice in NT where it cites the old AFAIK.
John in ch 12 is Not only citing sources but quoting verbatim to support his points. The average educated Jew knew the Torah by heart from the age of 12. He is clearly referring to one bloke not two as the text makes very clear. This is actually just about something saying what it says.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
We still have to interpret it though.
Which applies to what I've written just now in an uninspired way, as it does to scriptural texts.
You still haven't explained how it would make the Holy Spirit out to be a 'liar' if he worked within 1st century understandings of the authorship of ancient texts.
It's a bit like the mustard seed analogy I cited earlier which you didn't appear to understand.
I'm still interested in your reaction to Nick Tamen's take on these issues.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Mark says quote:
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’ ”
The first part of what he quotes comes from Malachi 3.1 and is not found at all in Isaiah. The second part of what he quotes is from Isaiah 40.3. As far as Greek allows one to make the distinction, it is as much a direct quotation from a source as the John 12 usage. In neither case is the argument about the authorship of the OT passage quoted. If in Mark the citation of two authors as if they were one is possible and permissible, then it demonstrates that such citations are not necessarily evidence of single authorship.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Mark says quote:
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’ ”
The first part of what he quotes comes from Malachi 3.1 and is not found at all in Isaiah. The second part of what he quotes is from Isaiah 40.3. As far as Greek allows one to make the distinction, it is as much a direct quotation from a source as the John 12 usage. In neither case is the argument about the authorship of the OT passage quoted. If in Mark the citation of two authors as if they were one is possible and permissible, then it demonstrates that such citations are not necessarily evidence of single authorship.
Mark does not do cite 2 authors as if they are one. He cites Isaiah as interpreted by Malachi. It is about thinking Jewish.
Sorry, Gamaliel, not sure what aspect of Nick’s comment you mean.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
What are your sources, and what is your evidence that Malachi is here or elsewhere interpreting Isaiah. In what sense is Malachi 3.1 an interpretation of Isaiah at all, let alone Isaiah. 40.3
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
What are your sources, and what is your evidence that Malachi is here or elsewhere interpreting Isaiah. In what sense is Malachi 3.1 an interpretation of Isaiah at all, let alone Isaiah. 40.3
Just scripture interpreting scripture. Sorry, not interested in argument. You see it your way and that is fine.
The only point I insist on is that Isaiah is one voice. That is simply because the NT writers see things that way. All the prophets were individuals not redacted anonymous sources. It is for objectors to prove otherwise.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The average educated Jew knew the Torah by heart from the age of 12.
Total bullshit.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The average educated Jew knew the Torah by heart from the age of 12.
Total bullshit.
Not to mention that neither Isaiah nor Malachi are part of Torah.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
In the Jewish culture of Jesus’ day kids were taught the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) in the local Synagogue (church) beginning at the age of 6. They had classes 5 days a week just like we do today. By the time they were about 10 years old, they had memorized all of those first five books
Steve Corn
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Mark does not do cite 2 authors as if they are one.
It seems to me that the prima facie evidence of the oldest manuscripts for these verses - excluding any context, agendas, interpretation, simply reading the text - is that this is exactly what he does. He mentions one name (Isaiah) and quotes from two separate books of the Bible.
What we make of that is another issue entirely, but that's what he does. quote:
He cites Isaiah as interpreted by Malachi.
That's your interpretation. It's not what the text says. quote:
It is about thinking Jewish.
How is us setting about "thinking Jewish" in this respect any different from me trying to understand the author's intent, an idea you dismissed earlier?
Again, at this point I'm not trying to "prove" any interpretation of the passages under discussion is right or wrong. I'm trying to point out to you that like the rest of us, your take does not arise from the text alone, in isolation, but also from the interpretive elements you bring to it.
There's nothing wrong with that at all - we're all doing it. Where I think there is a problem, however, is if we fail to acknowledge that we're doing it.
[ 19. December 2017, 05:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Absolutely, and the idea of scripture interpreting scripture is itself an interpretive framework that we apply to the text.
It is an interpretive tradition the same as any other.
That it might be a tradition or framework we favour does not make it any the less a tradition or framework.
As to the points Nick Tamen made, very articulately in my view, rather than extract proof-texts from it, I would refer Jamat to one of his entire posts, where he articulates his approach and understanding of these issues from a broadly Reformed perspective. It's the post where he sets his stall out and, whilst not necessarily rejecting a foretelling element in the prophetic writings, he describes how he believes these things work, with people discerning,recognising and applying what they find in the texts within the context of a developing tradition.
To my mind, that accords better with the evidence and with my own experience indeed, than the somewhat Mecanno-like or Lego-like, stack all the pieces or building blocks together in a mechanical way kind of approach which Jamat seems to favour.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
I have no problem with any of that. We see things through our lens, we bring our back story..rahdi rah.
The fact remains there is exegesis, focusing,teaching, explaining on what’s there and eisigesis, sticking stuff in.
In John 12, the author quotes Isaiah. Yes, really. There are not multi Isaiah redactors crawling through the pages. To say there is is speculative, unproven and maintained only by commentators with an anti-supernaturalist agenda. To assume they’re correct and cause lambs to stumble is what concerns
me.
You have some kind of assumption that I deny I interpret. Not true and never was. The issue is WHAT is being interpreted.
[ 19. December 2017, 06:50: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You've asked us to 'think Jewish.'
It strikes me that some of the other posters here are doing that more effectively than you are.
The Jews, along with all the other Middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultures of that time, had no problem will compiling pseudonymous material alongside that of named authors.
It would have been remarkably un-Jewish - as well as anachronistic - for the Apostle John to have written, 'As it says in the prophet Isaiah, well actually, by one or other of the prophets in the compendium of writings that bear his name ...'
Why would or should the Apostle John do anything other than treat the Book of Isaiah as a single document? That's how everyone treated it then.
And how does it undermine his application of it had there been priestly redactors and other prophetic contributors over the years?
What is a more pertinent point to this discussion isn't how Jewish boys were taught the Torah but how people handled midrashes, glosses, canonical and non-canonical texts back then.
The answer, of course, is that they handled them in a 1st century Jewish way and not in either a 19th century Higher Critical way nor a late 19th, early 20th century Protestant fundamentalist way (which is how you appear to approach these things).
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The fact remains there is exegesis, focusing,teaching, explaining on what’s there and eisigesis, sticking stuff in.
How is "the bit of Malachi quoted in Mark is actually amplifying Isaiah" - which is emphatically not in the text - anything other than eisigesis?
In my experience labelling something "eisigesis" is often just a way of dismissing exegesis we don't like.
quote:
In John 12, the author quotes Isaiah. Yes, really.
Agreed: he quotes from the book of Isaiah. What he doesn't do, in my view, is settle the debate about how many authors that involved. I think it's doing violence to the text here to suppose that it could settle that debate.
I don't think he settles it a) because it was not his intent and b) because the Mark example quoting Isaiah is evidence that attribution of authorship by a gospel writer is no proof of all the authors involved - even you don't contest Malachi had a hand in what's quoted as being "Isaiah" in Mark.
quote:
To say there is is speculative, unproven and maintained only by commentators with an anti-supernaturalist agenda.
If you're going to dismiss as out of court all interpretations other than yours then it effectively invalidates your concession that we are all interpreting.
Of course we all think our interpretations are better than everyone else's, but in this forum best practice is to back up our claims with more substance than "that's anti-supernaturalist".
You're not convincing me right now, not because I'm writing you off as having a "supernaturalist agenda", but because I think your approach to John and Mark quoting Isaiah is logically inconsistent.
quote:
To assume they’re correct
For my part I'm assuming no such thing and said so above. I'm trying to have an open mind. My mind frequently gets changed about exegesis here. That's a large part of why I'm here: to learn. quote:
and cause lambs to stumble is what concerns me.
That is a legitimate concern that I share.
The question is how best that is avoided. My personal experience is that it's not best avoided by simply dismissing alternative views out of hand.
In my own case, my spirituality is historically of the naive and simplistic kind. I "prayed the prayer" when I was about six years old and my faith is instinctive over and above intellectual (even though my response all those years ago was to an intellectual argument that I recall to this day).
As I've grown older, though, I've found that one of the biggest stumbling-blocks to my faith has been the discovery that while I've rarely had reason to doubt that those around me had sincere and genuine faith, many of the leading teachers in those circles were being at best intellectually inconsistent and at worst intellectually dishonest in their exegesis. I think the Gospel Coalition, mentioned above (which I ran into much later), is a case in point and with the likes of Piper and Grudem I really do believe it is intellectual dishonesty.
Of course not all conservative evangelical theologians are inconsistent or dishonest, and they certainly don't have a monopoly on intellectual inconsistency or dishonesty, but in my experience they do have a way of asserting their intrinsically superior approach (as they see it) to the text that can mislead their followers and blind them both to their own inconsistencies and to others' legitimate insights.
Again, my experience is that many commentators I would once have written off as "liberal" actually approach the text with more respect than many "evangelicals" actually do. Not all, to be sure, but not none by a long chalk.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I'm going to have one more go at this.
It is clear (from the Qumran Isaiah scroll) that what we know as the book of the prophet Isaiah existed in its present form over a century before Jesus' ministry, and the writing of the Gospels. Any reference to that work would quite naturally have been to Isaiah.
There is a question whether that work had a single author, or whether at some level multiple authorship was involved.
Mark's citation of texts from Malachi and Isaiah is evidence that citing two different authors under a single name was unproblematic at the time Mark's gospel was written, and both Jamat and I have advanced reasons for why it was not an issue.
At least prima facie, that is evidence that such a practice could have been in play before the book of Isaiah reached the final form which is attested by the Isaiah scroll from Qumran, and by the other ancient manuscripts we have.
John 12.38-41 is evidence that the text that we know as Isaiah could without comment simply be quoted as "Isaiah says…" It doesn't' tell us whether the whole text was regarded as being the product of a single author, or whether some process of scripture commenting on scripture took place in the text pre-dating Isaiah coming into its final form.
The process might already have become 'invisible' by the time of the Qumran scroll, although the citation in Mark's gospel suggests that even if it had taken place, and was still known when John's gospel was written, it could quite easily have passed without comment.
This is not an argument about whether Isaiah has single authorship or not. It is only an argument about whether John 12.38-41 is evidence for single authorship. Those verses certainly do not contradict single authorship for Isaiah, but they don't tell us anything at all about what processes might have shaped Isaiah into the form it had reached by the time of the Qumran Isaiah scroll.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
And, I would be tempted to add, multiple authors of Isaiah would not in and of itself detract from the integrity of Isaiah as part of Scripture.
[ 19. December 2017, 07:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd also, at the risk of waving a red tag to Jamat's bull, like to ask what kind of 'anti-supernaturalist' agenda those RCs or Orthodox who accept a late date for parts of Isaiah are pursuing?
They both put a strong emphasis on the Virgin Birth, which they see as being prophesied/foretold or at the very least, foreshadowed in Isaiah 7.
They both believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist in a way, however they define it,which requires supernatural agency on God's part.
So they can hardly be accused of pursuing an anti-supernaturalist agenda whatever else you might happen to disagree with them about.
I think all broadly conservative Christians of whatever stripe - Reformed, RC, Orthodox, Lutheran ... - would accept that some of the early Higher Critics went over the top and assigned unfeasibly late dates to some OT writings and parts of the Gospels.
They didn't get everything right. Far from it. What they did do, however, was to open up debate, to bring historical and critical enquiry to beat and - I would argue - give all of us, whether conservative theologically or liberal or radical in our approach,a broader frame of contextual reference.
Sure, the 19th century Protestant liberals could end up creating a Christ in their own image. There were, and remain, casualties.
I'm not as knowledgeable about evangelical exegesis as Eutychus, but the evangelical preachers I've most admired over the years are those who engage open-mindedly with these issues rather than pretending they don't exist or rubbishing them in blanket or broad-brush terms.
Yes, the protection of 'lambs' is a worthy concern. Yet those lambs aren't going to thank those shepherds who fence off legitimate pasture or who insist on a monoculture variety of grasses when there's a meadowful of richness on the other side of the hill.
The sense of palpable resentment one finds from recovering fundamentalists - of all kinds, not just evangelical ones - often stems from the kind of restrictions placed on open enquiry.
It's hardly surprising that fundamentalism is so brittle and snaps when the wind blows.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Agreed: he quotes from the book of Isaiah. What he doesn't do, in my view, is settle the debate about how many authors that involved. I think it's doing violence to the text here to suppose that it could settle that debate.
I don't think he settles it a) because it was not his intent and b) because the Mark example quoting Isaiah is evidence that attribution of authorship by a gospel writer is no proof of all the authors involved - even you don't contest Malachi had a hand in what's quoted as being "Isaiah" in Mark.
This.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In John 12, the author quotes Isaiah. Yes, really. There are not multi Isaiah redactors crawling through the pages. To say there is is speculative, unproven and maintained only by commentators with an anti-supernaturalist agenda. To assume they’re correct and cause lambs to stumble is what concerns
me.
Aside from the anti-supernaturalist motive being a very large red herring—God can’t inspire more than one writer and compiler?—what you’ve yet to do is explain why it matters? How does it cause lambs to stumble if Isaiah really was written by more than one person? How does that change what (the book of) Isaiah says?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've been trying to establish this throughout the thread and Jamat's not been answering.
Instead, he seems to take it as axiomatic that because the NT authors cite one name, Isaiah's, that this must self-evidently mean that there was only one author otherwise the Holy Spirit can't have inspired the sacred writings because they contain 'error'.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
In other words, the integrity and reliability of scripture unravels if we consider the possibility of more than one author and the whole edifice of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the economy of salvation and the economy of faith comes crashing down ...
At every point, Jamat's overly literal approach teeters on a razor's edge.
A nanometer either side of his very fine line and we all tumble into unbelief or perdition.
He might find it reassuring to walk that particular tight-rope but to my mind he's setting himself an unnecessarily wobbly balancing act.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Just another thought, Jamat's idea of inspiration and of supernaturalism (as it were) is that it also requires a predictive element in a very concrete sense - that the Isaiah who prophesied about Cyrus, King of Persia, must have been the Isaiah son of Amoz who lived over 200 years before Cyrus's reign.
Otherwise the scriptures are 'unreliable' ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So, his accusation that the Higher Critics 'require' a late date for passages in Isaiah in order to serve an 'anti-supernaturalist' agenda, could be turned around and pointed in his direction.
It could equally be argued that his schema requires an early, single-authored Isaiah in order to fit his particular definition of what a supernaturalist agenda involves.
Or to suit his particular frame of reference in terms of conservative / fundamentalist Protestant notions of scriptural inerrancy and infallibility.
So there's a lot at stake in Jamat's take.
The lambs could be lost unless they walk his particular tight-rope.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yes, I'd say that's all on the money.
The real challenge is to have a civilised (if at times lively...) discussion across that gulf, and pay due heed to any lambs that might fall into it along the way. I'm sure there are those in some of the constituencies I preach to who think along the same lines as Jamat and whose faith I could easily shipwreck through arrogance or carelessness.
As a preacher and teacher I have a responsibility to be a) honest with myself, especially about trying to force Scripture to fit my expectations b) honest in my preaching c) not setting out to create stumbling-blocks for my hearers
[ 19. December 2017, 12:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
