|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Daniel 9:24-27
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
A few reasons, one of which Gamaliel has already given. Then to try to get Jamat to think outside a very idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture - perhaps to realise that he is involved in an interpretation at all. And because it is closely linked to Anderson and his errors.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A few reasons, one of which Gamaliel has already given. Then to try to get Jamat to think outside a very idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture - perhaps to realise that he is involved in an interpretation at all. And because it is closely linked to Anderson and his errors.
Yes, I accept I interpret and have never denied this. What I assert is that denotative meaning is not interpretation. It is a step closer to the text and the subject of interpretation.
As to idiosyncratic interpretation? Well, as a reader, I differ. The Catholic liturgy, on the other hand, I find exceedingly idiosyncratic. The Matt 16 scripture said to justify the status of pope..now there’s an idiosyncrasy.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course, if you are Protestant or Orthodox then the RC interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is going to look idiosyncratic. No doubt the RCs would claim that other interpretations are idiosyncratic.
But there's a degree of 'whataboutery' here. Just because the RCs are idiosyncratic in their views on the Papacy, it doesn't mean that the Dispensationalists aren't idiosyncratic in their particular views.
There are worse things than being idiosyncratic, of course. It depends how far the idiosyncrasy goes.
--------------------
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:
Gamaliel: interpretive leaps:
- The assumption that prophecies in apocalyptic passages are necessarily predictive.
So, in your view, was the birth of Jesus prophetically foretold?
To the topic of this thread..is the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy still to occur? If not when did it occur?
Did Daniel actually predict the rise of Alexander the Great and the rise of The 4th kingdom, Rome, even down to its division into 2 parts?
If the use of numbers is symbolic and allegorical why use such a precise denotative tool for a task that is intended to depict something non precise and allegorical? Who gets to interpret the allegory?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You know as well as I do that there are other candidates for the identity of the kingdoms listed in Daniel. The very nature of apocalyptic and prophetic literature makes it possible to apply the descriptions to a number of regimes and dynasties, quite apart from the dating issue - and that applies even if we go for an early date for Daniel rather than a late 2nd century BC one.
Was the birth of Christ foretold?
Yes, but the way that 'works' it seems to me now, is more by way of a growing body of Messianic expectation with foreshadowings, types and glimpses which the disciples discerned as references/fulfilments to aspects of 'the Christ event'.
Is the Second Advent foretold? Yes. And again, with the gradual emergence of an expectation of a future consummation of God's Kingdom through the Apocalyptic writings and elements within the teaching of Christ.
By their very nature such writings and teachings are cryptic - 'let the reader understand' - with allusions, parallels to previous prophecies and apocalyptic literature - and multi-layered.
There are strands, themes and tropes which convey a cumulative effect and declare that the 'kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our God of his Christ.'
To postulate a spare 70th week that is still dangling around out there awaiting future fulfilment in a convoluted and multi-staged Second Advent - 'He's back! No he isn't ... he's gone away again and taken certain people with him ...' etc etc yadda yadda yadda, strikes me not only as completely unnecessary but a total waste of time.
--------------------
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
As to who gets to interpret the allegory (and I'd suggest that allegory is only one element, there are others) then the obvious answer is:
- The original audience and readers.
- Subsequent readers.
Did the original audience understand it the same way as us? Do we understand it the same way as they did?
Will people in 100,200, 500 years time understand it the same way that we do?
--------------------
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
So,
I make that a yes, no and a maybe.
If the first King of 'Grecia' was not Alexander the great, who died at the peak of power, left no progeny to inherit and whose realm was divided in 4, who is the other candidate?
If the 4th kingdom, after the Grecian, which was divided in 2 was not Rome in its east/west phase, what other candidates deserve consideration?
--------------------
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
Make of it what you will, Jamat, the point is that prophetic and apocalyptic literature is nowhere near as 'denotatively' straightforward as you appear to imagine.
I am constantly surprised that you appear to think it is when you are someone who has apparently taught literature and written poetry.
Why use cryptic or apocalyptic and allusive language at at all? If you take the reference to Cyrus in Isaiah as predictive then why not have Daniel's vision simply stating, 'Then there'll be Alexander The Great and after him his short-lived empire will divide into various Hellenistic dynasties ...'?
If it was all easy-peasy lemon-squeezy plain and straightforward then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. We'd be saying, 'Ah, it's obvious isn't it? That's a reference to Alexander the Great, that's a reference to the Ptolomies, this one is a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, that one to ...'
Or, it's obvious isn't it? The 49th Week coincided with a Wednesday afternoon in such and such a month and such a year ...
There are any number of permutations.
What we can say is that some of the material appears to refer/closely resemble events in the 2nd century BCE - and some doesn't. Some of it appears to fit/resemble the rise of Greece and Rome, other elements don't seem to fit those events quite so closely.
It's like a kaleidoscope rather than a camera-obscura.
We could make out a case for the four successive kingdoms in Daniel's vision as Babylon, the Medes, Persia and the Seleucids.
Or we could make out a case for it being Babylon, Medeo-Persia and the Greeks and Romans.
The fact that is allegorical/symbolic makes it applicable to a number of interpretations. We may favour one of another, but a big bright light isn't going to appear on the wall above our heads with a flashing neon sign which says, 'Bingo! You got it right ...'
The point of the vision remains the same however we interpret the references/allusions.
--------------------
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
Also, you don't get rid of the interpretive problems that easily if we go with Rome as the 4th kingdom with its east/west division from the 4th century AD onwards.
What possible benefit would it have been to readers in Daniel's time to have a prediction of a empire dividing into two some hundreds of years ahead?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What would have been the relevance of that to a 6th century BC readership, let alone a 2nd century BC one?
You see how silly it gets?
'Ah, but Gamaliel, you see that's because there is a further Week that has yet to be fulfilled and I can explain that to you because smart people like Schofield and Anderson worked it all out from the scriptural clues ...'
Yeah, right.
--------------------
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:
prophetic and apocalyptic literature is nowhere near as 'denotatively' straightforward as you appear to imagine
But the ones I cited certainly are. Straightforward enough for unbelieving theologians to posit a late date for Daniel.
Please, Gamaliel, personal comments are unnecessary.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok. Apologies for personal comments.
But how is a late date for Daniel 'unbelieving' and how are the visiting and prophecies necessarily denotive unless we decide to make them so?
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
prophetic and apocalyptic literature is nowhere near as 'denotatively' straightforward as you appear to imagine
But the ones I cited certainly are. Straightforward enough for unbelieving theologians to posit a late date for Daniel.
Please, Gamaliel, personal comments are unnecessary.
What's believing or not got to do with dating?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The assumption is that they plump for a later date because they are infidels and don't believe in predictive prophecy or that the Book of Daniel was written contemporaneously with its 6th century BC setting.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I plump for a later date for the obvious late date stuff because I am fidel and believe in predictive prophecy. Of course it was started in the Babylonian exile, even by an actual Daniel. And God obviously contributed to it in the image of Daniel 2. I don't see how He'd have to pragmatically violently intervene to fulfil that.
Daniel 9 may well have been given to THE Daniel in 539, although it's interesting that the king is wrong. An easy mistake in the culture of four hundred years later, despite being accurate down to 167 BCE and significantly, again, not to 164.
But let's assume it's dated correctly, it doesn't violate God. But Daniel getting his king wrong is more than suspicious.
Daniel 11-12 - the Kings of the North and South - does. Violate God. There again so would 8 - the Ram and Goat (a great pub) - if it were prophecy, more evidence, not that any is needed, that 9, 11-12 aren't. 10 doesn't prophecy anything.
I want it all to be true, all to be dated from 605 to 539 and written by Daniel.
But there is no warrant for that.
Unless God is Killer.
Or worse.
[ 27. January 2018, 10:27: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The worse being that God is a B-theorist.
--------------------
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 Martin60:
I plump for a later date for the obvious late date stuff because I am fidel and believe in predictive prophecy. Of course it was started in the Babylonian exile, even by an actual Daniel. And God obviously contributed to it in the image of Daniel 2. I don't see how He'd have to pragmatically violently intervene to fulfil that.
Daniel 9 may well have been given to THE Daniel in 539, although it's interesting that the king is wrong. An easy mistake in the culture of four hundred years later, despite being accurate down to 167 BCE and significantly, again, not to 164.
But let's assume it's dated correctly, it doesn't violate God. But Daniel getting his king wrong is more than suspicious.
Daniel 11-12 - the Kings of the North and South - does. Violate God. There again so would 8 - the Ram and Goat (a great pub) - if it were prophecy, more evidence, not that any is needed, that 9, 11-12 aren't. 10 doesn't prophecy anything.
I want it all to be true, all to be dated from 605 to 539 and written by Daniel.
But there is no warrant for that.
Unless God is Killer.
Or worse.
There is no obvious late date. It is a fiction created by the Bible trashing higher critics which if you believe, you at least need to acknowledge the motive of a naturalistic rather than a supernaturalistic assumption.
By the way, what king was wrong?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Serious question, Jamat.
In what way is your 'supernaturalist assumption' any less of an assumption than a 'naturalistic' one which plumps for an early date?
Other than, 'because it says so', what other irrefutable evidence is there for an early date for Isaiah or Daniel?
I've read arguments on both sides and there are strong arguments on both sides - apart from some of the more populist uber-conservative literalists.
How is it any less of an assumption that higher critics have a 'bible trashing' agenda than to assume that some conservatives have an obscurantism or reactionary agenda?
Surely it's better to examine each case in its own merits?
From what I can gather, the original Higher Critics postulated unfeasibly late dates for some scriptural texts, which have now been dated earlier in the light of subsequent scholarship. That hasn't 'proved' the conservatives right, but it does indicate that opinion isn't fixed and that dating of ancient texts is not an exact science.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The late date for Daniel 11-12 is obvious because otherwise, rationally, we live in an eternalist, 4-dimensional, block time, ontologically time-sliced universe, which I don't like. But if we do, that actually doesn't make God a violator of man or us of Him.
If that's what you're saying Jamat, I can live wit that. But if you're saying that God is Killer, nah.
[ 31. January 2018, 18:15: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
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:
In what way is your 'supernaturalist assumption' any less of an assumption than a 'naturalistic' one which plumps for an early date?
I think because the text itself deals with the supernatural and claims the reality of prophecy and the presence of angelic beings who convey it. In assuming its truth, I assume only what it claims for itself. If I question Daniel’s experiences, I question not only the supernatural but also his integrity. If he is a liar then the date question is irrelevant.
By seeking ‘irrefutable evidence’, I think you betray naturalistic thinking rather than that of a man of faith because in effect, you are saying you want the sort of evidence that would convince an unbeliever. Thus you place both in the same jury as it were. However, we both know that no one is convinced by any evidence whatsoever if their heart is hard or they are hurt or angry. Evidence will not affect that inner resistance to God’s truth. It must be broken down in other ways. The best way in my experience is to submit oneself to the truth of scripture. It is hard for my pride to do this but is the way to faith. As Romans 10:17 says,”Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.”
[ 01. February 2018, 08:53: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Your point about 'irrefutable evidence' is well made, but the other points you make are wide of the mark.
Was Dickens a liar because Oliver Twist is a novel. Was Shakespeare a liar because King Richard III never said, 'A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse?' on the battlefield of Bosworth?
Now, I'm not saying that the Book of Daniel is a work of fiction in the way that those works are, but it is written in a particular genre - that we call apocalyptic. Which rather suggests we should read it differently to the way you are doing.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
In what way is your 'supernaturalist assumption' any less of an assumption than a 'naturalistic' one which plumps for an early date?
I think because the text itself deals with the supernatural and claims the reality of prophecy and the presence of angelic beings who convey it. In assuming its truth, I assume only what it claims for itself. If I question Daniel’s experiences, I question not only the supernatural but also his integrity. If he is a liar then the date question is irrelevant.
By seeking ‘irrefutable evidence’, I think you betray naturalistic thinking rather than that of a man of faith because in effect, you are saying you want the sort of evidence that would convince an unbeliever. Thus you place both in the same jury as it were. However, we both know that no one is convinced by any evidence whatsoever if their heart is hard or they are hurt or angry. Evidence will not affect that inner resistance to God’s truth. It must be broken down in other ways. The best way in my experience is to submit oneself to the truth of scripture. It is hard for my pride to do this but is the way to faith. As Romans 10:17 says,”Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.”
It seems to me that if you're going to argue that way, then you can turn it round the other ...
Yes, it is hard for our pride to 'submit oneself to the truth of scripture.'
But equally, we can take a perverse pride in asserting that OUR particular take on scripture is THE correct and definitive one.
Or, it can be hard for us to swallow our pride and accept that a different 'take' or angle on scripture may be better than one we currently hold.
It works both ways.
Besides, why does 'submitting oneself to the truth of scripture' necessitate having to interpret apocalyptic or visionary scriptures in a literal sense?
--------------------
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:
Now, I'm not saying that the Book of Daniel is a work of fiction in the way that those works are, but it is written in a particular genre - that we call apocalyptic
Essentially,you are saying it is a work of fiction, by using an absurd illustration.
Not all of Daniel is what you vaguely term apocalyptic. There is quite a bit of narrative history alongside the future themes.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Now, I'm not saying that the Book of Daniel is a work of fiction in the way that those works are, but it is written in a particular genre - that we call apocalyptic
Essentially,you are saying it is a work of fiction, by using an absurd illustration.
Not all of Daniel is what you vaguely term apocalyptic. There is quite a bit of narrative history alongside the future themes.
Well, yes, of course there is, but then there the sections which are clearly more visionary and, to use a term you appear to object to, 'apocalyptic'.
Narrative and apocalyptic can co-exist, in the same way that poetry and prose co-exist in a Shakespeare play.
My analogy with Shakespeare and Dickens is not as 'absurd' as you suggest. Both Oliver Twist and A Tale of Two Cities are set at a particular time and in a particular context. They don't set out to be historically accurate accounts of course, but works of fiction set against that background.
Now, I'm not saying that the author/s (?) of Daniel set out with the same intention and that the whole thing is 'made up'. I am simply suggesting that he is using the literary tools available to him to convey his (their?) message.
That included the apocalyptic.
I'm not suggesting he didn't have actual lucid visions, any more than I am suggesting that the author of Revelation didn't.
Rather, I am saying that this kind of visionary and apocalyptic/prophetic material is embedded within the narrative - in a similar way, perhaps, to how a Shakespearean solioquy is embedded into the action of the play.
Did Henry V take Harfleur? Yes, he did.
Did he pause before the walls to shout, 'Once more into the breach dear friends?'
No, of course not.
FWIW I am quite prepared to accept the Book of Jonah as some kind of midrash/'novel' and possibly Esther in the same kind of way. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that Jonah wasn't a real guy or that the Jews didn't go into exile etc.
With Daniel, it seems to me, that we've got several strands going on and interweaving - narrative and apocalyptic.
That immediately should alert us that it's to be read in a different kind of way.
Equally, it's somewhat anachronistic to 'read back' later literary genres, such as the 18th or 19th century fiction or Renaissance drama, back into the ancient texts. We need to tackle these ancient texts in a different kind of way.
Of course, we all know how the Church came to approach these texts, the three / four principles of considering the literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical.
At certain times and places, various of the three / four approaches have tended to dominate.
We need to apply them all.
--------------------
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
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... In assuming its truth, I assume only what it claims for itself. ...
There are rather a lot of texts that claim truth for themselves. So there has to be some separate and independent motive for accepting the claims of a particular text.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... In assuming its truth, I assume only what it claims for itself. ...
There are rather a lot of texts that claim truth for themselves. So there has to be some separate and independent motive for accepting the claims of a particular text.
Ah, but it's scripture and therefore inspired by God, so if it tells us that Daniel had a vision or that a particular book was written by Isaiah son of Amoz, we have no option but to take that at face value.
That's how the argument runs.
Which then gets us into all sorts of acrobatics, such as why the Hebrew version of Daniel which doesn't contain the story of Bel and the Dragon is inspired but the Greek version, which does contain that story, isn't ...
So, if God inspired it then, according to Jamat, it has to contain no errors or contradictions nor anything 'fictitious' - unless its a parable or something similar.
So there really was a conversation between God and the Devil over Job because the Book of Job records there being one.
So Jonah must have literally sung his hymn from within the belly of the great fish, because the Book of Jonah gives us the lyrics ...
And so on ...
There'd be internal proof-texts cited to support this case, but, unsurprisingly enough, a reluctance to cite any separate or independent motives such as:
- Because the Church accepts it as such.
- Tradition or small t tradition accepts it as such.
- That chap over there says so.
Or whatever else might constitute 'separate or independent' motives.
Mind you, I'm not sure what 'separate and independent' sources or motives there might be - all these things are interdependent and interconnected.
It's a both/and thing, not an either/or ... 'the Church through the Bible and the Bible through the Church.'
The classic conservative response would be that God himself has attested to it, so there is no need for any further discussion.
Which is, of course, a circular argument.
Which is fine, as long as we recognise it as such and don't pretend it's anything other than that.
Jamat is right in reminding us that it boils down to a faith position and that no amount of 'evidence' is going to settle some of these matters one way or t'other.
I'm with him on that one, but coming at things from a somewhat different direction when assessing how these things work out, as it were and how we approach these texts.
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by agingjb:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... In assuming its truth, I assume only what it claims for itself. ...
There are rather a lot of texts that claim truth for themselves. So there has to be some separate and independent motive for accepting the claims of a particular text.
But this is not just any text. This is scripture. This text is in a class of its own because over many years it has been ascribed the authority of a divine seal by Jews and believers in Christ. In the context of this exchange, the question was about ‘irrefutable evidence’. I guess you could say that this biblical text puts historical events alongside supernatural dreams and angelic visits. Eg ‘in the first year of X etc’. It is that something objective is claimed alongside something supernatural.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Which by no means unique to scripture, of course. Ancient epic poetry does the same.
The sacred texts of other religions do the same.
Of course there isn't incontrovertible evidence or 'irrefutable' proof, and yes, as a Christian I'm going to put more weight on scripture than I am on The Iliad or the Hindu scriptures etc.
But these writings are theological writings, they aren't meant to be newspaper reports. They aren't 'objective' any more than any other writing is 'objective'.
That doesn't mean it isn't true, it simply means that it isn't necessarily dealing with objective facts in a laboratory sense.
--------------------
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:
That doesn't mean it isn't true, it simply means that it isn't necessarily dealing with objective facts in a laboratory sense.
And that is your issue..that anyone need insist that the things related are objectively true. Perhaps you need to specify what other kind of ‘true’ there is. Essentially, what people understand as true is objective truth. There is no other kind and God’s revelation was not to theologians, but to humanity in general.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, but humanity in general thinks theologically. Human beings are religious.
All cultures and societies have developed belief systems.
That doesn't mean I don't believe that the revelation of Christ isn't unique nor that the Hebrew/Christian scriptures are simply on a par with any other religious text.
None of the writers of scripture are writing something that is non-theological. It is a book that conveys a body of belief. It isn't the Yellow Pages or a computer manual.
At times I get the impression that you treat the scriptures like a set of assembly instructions for a piece of flat-pack furniture.
What I'm saying is that there are theologically truths that are different to literal or narrative truths.
Did the Devil literally walk into God's office one afternoon to file an accusation against him over his servant Job?
No, of course not. The Book of Job is using a literary-theological device.
Did Job's Comforters have a dialogue with him using the Hebrew equivalent of iambic pentameter?
Do John's visions in Revelation mean that heaven has actual streets of gold or that one day we'll all be attacked by anthropoid scorpion-like creatures?
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
NOTHING can influence Jamat's elephant but experience. And that 99.99% excludes us and anything we say. We just gots to find a way to love his rogue elephant for the sake of the mahout being dragged around on top.
As an Alzheimer's sufferer said to his wife, 'Help the elephant!'.
--------------------
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:
Did the Devil literally walk into God's office one afternoon to file an accusation against him over his servant Job
No but what is the right question?
Is it.. ‘was there an encounter between God and Satan over the status of God’s servant Job?’
If not, then why is one asserted?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've answered that already,because it is a literary-theological work which deploys the plot device of a somewhat 'realised' encounter between God and Satan in order to introduce and explore the issues that the Book of Job so profoundly and poetically examines.
That works equally well if it is an account of a literal event or whether it's a stylised one. In fact, the issue of whether it really took place is a secondary one and the status of scripture as the inspired word of God doesn't stand or fall by it one iota.
Was Job a real person who had all sorts of misfortune? Yes, I believe heay well have been.
Even if he wasn't and it's a form of parable or extended midrashic fable, it doesn't detract from the power or theological veracity of the story, nor the status of scripture in the way it would if someone were to dig up Christ's bones in Jerusalem tomorrow.
--------------------
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:
somewhat 'realised' encounter between God and Satan
So what is that code for?..somewhat realised?
..I know, pick me! ..it came out of some bronze aged scribe’s imagination!
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Where else would it have come from? Did God dictate it to a Bronze Age scribe?
If the writer of Job chose to address issues of theodicy and the cosmic dimension of God's providence and human responses to it by using this particular trope how does this make the Bible any the less inspired or the story any the less true?
We can't even begin to talk about these kind of issues without resorting to symbol, metaphor and 'picture language'.
Besides, the encounter between God and Satan in Job raises all sorts of issues if understood as if it is a page out of Hansard.
By approaching it as a story, a midrash, a theological narrative, in no way diminishes the reality of God, of Satan or our understanding of the world around us.
You are requiring it to conform to particular ideas of how you think scripture ought to 'work'.
Have you read any Jewish midrashes? They personify God in often shockingly anthropomorphic terms. They didn't take them literally, at least not in the way they describe God, but as teaching and debating tools.
--------------------
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
Jamat, does your theology / view of inspiration have any room for the use of the imagination?
Wasn't Jesus using his imagination when he told Parables?
I don't understand why you feel the need to denigrate the possible role of the imagination in a work like Job or Jonah.
You seem to suggest that if it is anyway 'imaginative' then somehow it isn't true.
Why is that? Why posit such a dichotomy?
What purpose does it serve?
It neither defends or reinforces the inspiration or integrity of scripture. If anything it demeans it in favour of s wooden reductionism.
--------------------
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:
You seem to suggest that if it is anyway 'imaginative' then somehow it isn't true
Not sure what you mean by imaginative here.
Do you mean like a kid imagines things or cultural fictions like the tooth fairy or using the mind to create possibilities?
If any of these, how would one bring it to bear on the scenario of Job ch1?
Jesus referred more than once to Jonah’s experience and used that to teach his death and resurrection. Jonah was ‘midrash’ in that instance but Jonah’s experience was seen by him as literally real as well...’as Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the fish..’
--------------------
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
Ok, let's let look at it another way ...
Just suppose we both had bacon and eggs for breakfast tomorrow morning. We might say 'grace' or give God thanks for it as the ultimate source of the food on our table.
But to get from God onto our table and into our stomachs, it's gone through a lengthy and complicated process. Agriculture, husbandry, abattoirs, processing, packaging, marketing, retsil, logistics ...
Is it God or the farmer we should thank?
God or the truck driver, the greengrocer, the ...
So, by analogy, that Bible you might read tomorrow morning or hear preached from?
How does that get to us?
By a lengthy and complex process. Part of that might just conceivably involve someone composing and editing, using their imagination, engaging their faculties, using narrative skills ...
How does any of that leave God out of the equation?
Of course Job is an imaginative book. It's narrative poetry for much of its length. There are stylised conversations and dialogue. That's how it works.
It works by engaging the human imagination. It's not CCTV footage of a meeting between God and the Devil one afternoon ...
The exchange between God and Satan, the exchanges between Job and his Comforters and ultimately between God and Job are stylised ones, literary devices.
That doesn't mean Job didn't exist or that terrible things befell him from which he was eventually 'restored' ...
But even if he didn't exist, even if he were a fictitious character (which I think is unlikely but this is for sake of argument), then how does that detract from the theological points the author makes?
FWIW, I do think that Job was probably a real character - or a set of archetypal characters - but whatever undeying report or historical context there might be, it's the theological and literary aspects that are most important.
--------------------
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
If I said, 'King Arthur drew the sword out of the Stone ...' does that mean I take the Arthurian legends literally?
We don't know how literally Jesus took the story of Jonah. Your proof-text doesn't prove anything one way or another.
We can't prove he took it literally and can't prove he didn't. Either way it's the analogy he is drawing and applying to his own death and resurrection that is the important point.
--------------------
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
Bu why do the theological and literacy elements contradict the reality of events depicted? Job is about patience in adversity. Why must Job be fictional? The lesson is more forceful if Job’s adversities happened to a real man.
My issue with your view, really, is that you assert that stories in scripture that are narratives of characters can be seen as just as authoritative if those stories were fictional.
You continually say as much but never support it. If Job or Jonah are mere fictional cautionary tales, why should they be accorded authority above the poems of Hilliare Belloc?
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
It's a long time since I studied Daniel, but isn't it the case that his prophecies are amazingly accurate and precise up to a certain point, and then become very woolly and general? If it was all predicting the future that is hard to explain; if the author was writing about past events and then switched to speculating about the future it's much easier to understand.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Job's adversities may have been real. I'm open to the possibility - or rather, the probability, that he was a real historical figure, one that become an emblematic by-word for patient endurance in the face of suffering.
But the point of the story doesn't depend on him being an historical character.
As for the poetry of Hilaire Belloc, nobody's ever sought to canonise them have they?
I can't remember a Vatican Council, an Orthodox Ecumenical Council or a synod of any Protestant denomination ever debating whether Belloc's poems should be included retrospectively in their canon of holy writ ...
The ancients didn't make the same kind of distinctions between fiction and non-fiction, poetry and prose etc as we do.
--------------------
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 Jamat:
My issue with your view, really, is that you assert that stories in scripture that are narratives of characters can be seen as just as authoritative if those stories were fictional.
Why is that a problem? Are the parables of Jesus any less authoritative by virtue of being stories rather than events that actually happened?
--------------------
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
Indeed, and it is telling, perhaps, that Jamat appears to portray the imagination in such a dismissive way. It's something kids use or it creates trite cultural fictions such as the tooth fairy ...
He doesn't cite it in connection with a Homer or a Milton, a Shakespeare or a Coleridge, a Leonardo or a Tolstoy,a Beethoven, Bach or Mozart ...
Ok, I tend to be wary of the use of the imagination in an Ignatian sense or in the Romantic sense when applied to spirituality, but I don't see why we have to insist on modern notions of historical accuracy when dealing with books like Job or Jonah.
--------------------
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
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My issue with your view, really, is that you assert that stories in scripture that are narratives of characters can be seen as just as authoritative if those stories were fictional.
Why is that a problem? Are the parables of Jesus any less authoritative by virtue of being stories rather than events that actually happened?
Well, exactly. One of the things that always strikes me about the parable of the Good Samaritan is how Jesus knocks the lawyer's worldview completely out of whack by making up a story. The lawyer could easily have countered with, "but that couldn't happen, you just made that up!" - but he doesn't; he can't. It's as if the story has its own power and authority, is true in a way that goes beyond its histrocity*, and in a way that he can't avoid, even though he's been listening essentially to a work of fiction.
Now, I personally wouldn't want to push that too far: I do believe, for example, the resurrection of Jesus actually happened (though I'm less and less keen on those books that try to prove it). But I think we underestimate the very real power of story, even invented story, to bring home truth.
--
*I'm aware that there are some who have argued that Jesus was recounting a real event in this parable. I don't buy that.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure. I attended a fascinating day/evening recently where an Anglican theologian explored the use of art in exploring meaty theological issues.
He gave due weight to the classic Creedal doctrines but suggested that whilst there was certainly scope for systematic theology, doctrinal debate etc etc, it would also help if we approached these things as we approach art and music (of whatever kind).
It wasn't that he was 'dismissing' it all as metaphor - which is what Jamat seems to think we are in danger of doing, but neither was it a bald, proof-texting approach - and there were plenty of scriptural references in his presentations.
He struck plenty of chords with me.
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My issue with your view, really, is that you assert that stories in scripture that are narratives of characters can be seen as just as authoritative if those stories were fictional.
Why is that a problem? Are the parables of Jesus any less authoritative by virtue of being stories rather than events that actually happened?
Parables are not narrative stories and not what I was talking about. They are illustrative fictional cautionary tales. Not denying their place or function but neither Jonah nor Job narratives are parables.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Parables are not narrative stories and not what I was talking about. They are illustrative fictional cautionary tales. Not denying their place or function but neither Jonah nor Job narratives are parables.
I didn't say they were. I rhetorically noted that the parables are authoritative despite not being accounts of events that actually happened. The non-rhetorical question is: Why would the authoritative nature of the stories of Job or Jonah be undermined if those stories are not accounts of events that actually happened?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
