[Vision2020] Old vs. New Covenant V

[nickgier at adelphia.net]

Greetings:

I hope the Princess is not too offended if I disagree with her “wise man” who encourages us to violate the number one rule of general hermeneutics.  Critical readers who ignore the historical, cultural context of any text are not only showing great disrespect for the text, but they are also kidding themselves if they claim to know what it means. 

The Princess and many other fundamentalists somehow want an exception to general hermeneutical rules for reading the Bible, but they are quite willing to accept the results of the historical-critical method when it is applied to Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam.  Somehow only their scripture is self-authenticating, but this is nothing but hypocrisy.

I’m sure the Princess would laugh at Tibetan Buddhist claims that their scripture knew the diameter of the earth before it was scientifically measured, or predicted that the Dharma would come to the “Land of the Red Man,” but they in turn might find the Princess’ prophecies rather far fetched as well.

The Princess identifies her “wise man” as Peter Leithart.  Leithart is Senior Fellow at NSA, who believes in a literal six-day creation and other fundamentalist doctrines.  His views of biblical interpretation are quite suitable for a Bible college, but I wonder if he has presented them at any meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature?

Leithart has also defended the writings of Christian nationalist Rousas John Rushdoony.  Rushdoony is the inspiration for NSA attorney (and future Christian magistrate) Greg Dickison’s views about the death penalty for homosexuals and non-Christians.  Rushdoony’s quote “Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies" may also be the source of Doug Wilson’s anti-democratic politics.  What a laugh when Wilson says he does not have a political agenda.

Contrary to the Princess’ implications, a very large number of  Bible scholars (I would say over 90 percent) are believing Christians.  If I am anti-Christian for citing them, then they are, by direct implication, anti-Christian as well.  Most respectable seminaries teach their students that one can accept the historical-critical method of understanding the Bible without in any way undermining the authority of the Bible for faith.

Luther and Calvin were on the cusp of a scholarly approach to the Bible.  Calvin gives a stiff rebuke to fundamentalisms of all ages:  "Those who wish to prove to unbelievers that Scripture is the Word of God are acting foolishly, for only by faith can this be known." 

Luther concluded “when discrepancies occur in the Holy Scripture, and we cannot harmonize them, let them pass.  It does not endanger the articles of the Christian faith.” 

I also love conservative Presbyterian Francis Patton’s declaration: “It is surely a strange apologetic that says faith in Christ is all you need for salvation; and then says, you have no right to your faith in Christ unless you believe that the Bible is without error.” Aren’t you and Leithart conservative Presbyterians, Princess?

One of my treasured possessions is a letter from conservative evangelical F. F. Bruce addressing the question of Luke’s census.  Bruce concluded that W. M. Ramsey, who defended the historicity of the event, "unwisely damaged his well-founded reputation as a very considerable scholar."  

I also commend conservative evangelical Stephen Davis who, in his book “Debate about the Bible,” claims that conservative Christians have to choose between detailed inerrancy and divine benevolence.  Biblical passages that indicate that Yahweh commanded genocide cannot be the words of a good deity.  My book on the evangelicals is loaded with passages from these wise evangelical scholars, philosophers, and theologians. These good folks would be shocked to be called “unbelievers.”
 
The Princess is wrong when he says that I “acknowledge” that her  agenda solely from the Bible.  By calling her a biblical theologian, I’m only recognizing her attempts not any success. I have demonstrated that her hidden agenda is extra-biblical, especially the attempts to read the Trinity back into scripture that has no hint of it, or making many Hebrew scripture passages into messianic predictions. And remember, according to 2 Tim 3.16, there is no such things a “Greek scriptures” or their being “God breathed,” because those were taught to Paul and his contemporaries in childhood.

If there are extant creedal texts before 200 CE, then I challenge the Princess to produce them. Robert Grant would surely have mentioned them, because the reviewers of his book would not have allowed it to be published.  By the way, I will recognize a scholar’s authority only when his or her work is published by a press that uses blind review, not simply the OK of an editor at Canon Press.

Finally, in using the Leithart passage the Princess is implying that I’m using a some fancy metaphysical approach to reading the Bible.  I could bore everyone with contemporary hermeneutical theory because I did study under Hans-Georg Gadamer, the founder of the “New Hermeneutic,” at Heidelberg University. (What I discovered is summed up in my chapter “Language and Hermeneutic” in my Wittgenstein book.) But for this discussion I’m simply holding the Princess to what the Bible says, according to the best translations and the best commentaries.  It is a very common sense approach to reading texts and the only way to get at their meaning. 

I’m willing to address any more issues that the Princess wants to raise, but I will not respond to charges of being anti-Christian or religiously intolerant, nor will I stand for implicit insults being hurled at good, honest Bible scholars, especially those who are conservative evangelicals.  Such bad manners are in very poor taste and do not advance the Princess’ agenda.

Nick Gier