Monday, August 30, 2010

John Bugay, Peter Lampe and William Dever














In my previous thread, I shared an ongoing dialogue that I have been engaged in with John Bugay concerning his use of liberal, critical scholarship. The dialogue can be summed up with the following:

I believe it is inconsistent for conservative Christians to appeal to liberal, critical scholarship against other conservative paradigms for polemical purposes, whilst John sees no inconsistency in such an application.

In the combox of the previous thread, John posted:

But his overall conclusion is the result of a thorough examination of the history of ancient Rome. His views of the Scriptures form only one small part of that work. Lampe's "critical methodology" is to have seemingly examined each and every scrap of paper from that era, each and every inscription, each and every available public record, in order to come to his conclusions.

Tell me how his view on text-critical item 6d has any impact at all on his overall historical conclusions?
(LINK)

I briefly responded to John earlier today, but would now like to expand my response.

I have given John two examples where Lampe clearly states that he believes the historical record contained in the New Testament is mistaken. When Lampe (and other critical scholars like himself) examine the historicity of the Bible, archeology and secular history takes precedence over the Biblical record. Some critical scholars refuse to give the Bible’s historicity any value at all, but Lampe at least sees some value in the Biblical record, even though he discerns errors in it. Such an approach has turned the status of early Christian history upside down for the vast majority of critical scholars, for such scholars one can no longer speak of early Christianity, but rather, one must speak of early Christianities. Not only does incredible diversity exist in the early post-apostolic churches, but also within the New Testament documents themselves. This is what happens when a scholar begins with the premise that archeology and secular history must take precedence over Biblical historicity. One cannot speak of an early “orthodox” group of Christians, spreading a pristine, consistent, theological position that was delivered to them by the apostles which was being corrupted by heretics; but rather, one must recognize that there was competing theological ideologies from the very beginning with an “orthodoxy” of sorts emerging after the rise of the ‘apologists’. The number of liberal, critical scholars who embrace such views is vast, and it certainly does not stop with the New Testament and early churches, the Old Testament and history of ancient Israel has suffered the same fate.

The trilogy of books pictured above from the pen of William G. Dever represents a solid consensus of recent critical scholarship that works under the premise that archeology and secular history must take precedence over Old Testament Biblical historicity. The results undermine much of the Old Testament’s historical and theological witness. Dever, and the consensus of critical OT archeologists and historians, like Lampe (as John pointed out above), “have seemingly examined each and every scrap of paper from that era, each and every inscription, each and every available public record, in order to come to his conclusions”, and his conclusions include: a pre-monarchy group of “Israelites” is a myth; an exodus of a large group “Israelites” out of Egypt to Palestine is a myth; Moses is not an historical figure; monotheism did not exist until after the Babylonian captivity; the pre-monotheistic Yahweh had a wife (and possibly wives—Mormon apologists love this kind of stuff). Once again, this is what happens when a scholar begins with the premise that archeology and secular history must take precedence over Biblical historicity.

In my earlier response to John I wrote:

Now, sometimes conservative and liberal scholars arrive at the same conclusions, however when two differing conservative paradigms differ over a given position I believe it is inconsistent for either side to appeal to liberals who may agree with them; but, in the field of polemics, this happens way to often. Conservative Mormons appeal to Dever, but when Dever’s methods are applied to the Book of Mormon, they reject those methods; conservative Muslims appeal Ehrman, but when Ehrman’s critical methods are turned on the textual history of the Qur’an they too end up rejecting such methods; and when conservative Protestants turn to critical scholars like Lampe to undermine the primacy of the bishop Rome and apostolic succession, when his methods are applied to the NT they reject the conclusions. That some liberal Catholic scholars agree with Lampe and other critical scholars concerning the early Church should come as no surprise, just as some liberal Protestant scholars agree with the Dever and Ehrman types should come as no surprise.

So, is the conservative apologist being consistent when he/she embraces some of the conclusions of liberal, critical scholarship that happen to coincide with their particular beliefs on a given issue, using such scholarship polemically against other conservatives who happen to disagree with them? I say NO; what do others think?


Grace and peace,

David

P.S. I see that Ken Temple in the combox of my previous thread has provided a link to a NEW THREAD at Beggars All that is germane to some of the issues of this post; I think some of his musings are addressed above—have a few more comments that need to made to deal with a couple of specifics in his post, but I have run out time for today—hope to add a few more reflections tomorrow (the Lord willing).

14 comments:

John Bugay said...

David, I've begun to respond here:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/david-waltz-fails-to-consider-what-is.html

I expect more will follow.

Nick said...

When someone puts their stakes on one horse, they need to stick with that horse. One cannot selectively cite a scholar, especially if the scholar is liberal and you are conservative - this is precisely what the JWs are famous for (e.g. their work against the Trinity quotes from "authorities" like "The Paganism in our Christianity," which just so happens to also say the Bible is full of pagan and other errors, but this latter detail is ignored.)

This is why certain of the Early Church Fathers were venerated as Saints/Doctors, since their testimony was considered genuine and reliable guide for early Christianity. When one throws away this distinction, they've made secular historians their authority rather than a living testimony of Christians led by the Spirit.

This article sums up the heart of the problem:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/the-tradition-and-the-lexicon/

Protestant interpretation of Scripture and the facts is grounded on (the shifting sand) of secular scholarship, since they put no stake in a reliable Church Tradition or Church Teachers. Even a Protestant scholar falls into the category of secular scholarship, since their analysis is based on a scientific approach to the current data and not some Tradition as a standard, nor do they claim any sort of personal Christian Teaching authority. So, for example, if a Protestant wants to study "justification," they will turn to a secular lexicon which itself attempts to define the meaning based on a grammatical word analysis and not any sort of Analogy of Faith. And the problem is, when a new wave of scholarship emerges, it carries the lexicons and other such academia wherever it wants and drags Protestantism along with it. This is why there is a terrible divide in Reformed Protestantism now with New Perspective and Federal Vision scholars and Pastors appearing (and the general trend of Conservative Reformed appealing almost dogmatically to Reformed Confessions while the New Perspective scholars appeal to current Biblical scholarship).

Ken said...

Nick,
Problem with David and his "throwing out another issue" to sidetrack the real issue, is that mentioning these books by Dever seems to be a ploy to "cause a little doubt" and seems to be subtly recommending somehow that Dever is a credible source for the OT history and archeology - and these books seek to undermine everything the OT and NT and church history is built on, if monotheism developed out of the polytheism.


No wonder David is open to Bahai'ism - he seems to actually believe that Dever is right.

That theory was debunked long ago and is talked about by Don Richardson in his book, "Eternity in their Hearts"; and John has added other good responses to this stuff.

John,
Good job, brother!

David,
You are grasping at straws here and complicating matters by adding in another side-track on a completely different issue than Lampe and the early history of Rome. The available evidence for us concerning the OT is a completely different matter. Try to focus only on Lampe and the specifics, as John does.

John has begun a good refutation of that garbage that Dever is polluting your mind with.

Better to re-read the Bible from cover to cover systematically, with faith and prayer ("Lord, speak to me"! Cry out!) and stop reading too many other books that destroy faith. You have already read them, and you know deep down that they destroy faith in Monotheism and the Trinity and the true God of the Bible, so there is no need to keep rehashing all these atheistic and secular theories. "Be renewed in the spirit of your mind" (Ephesians 4:20-24; Romans 12:1-2; Colossians 3:1-17) I recommend you listen to the Bible being read by Max McLean so you can focus and not pull down another book in your vast library that creates doubt in your mind and soul and causes you to be open to such false religions as Bahai'ism.

You still have not answered the questions on Bahai'ism (in the last 2 comboxes) and you make no comments on my exhortation to you.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/exhortation-to-david-waltz.html

Question:

Why are there so many links to sites that have nothing to do with the subjects here? (the Spanish links to this post) at bottom?

David Waltz said...

Hi John,

Appreciate the link, will head over there after I have responded to all the new posts here at AF.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Nick,

So good to see you back at AF; you posted:

>> When someone puts their stakes on one horse, they need to stick with that horse. One cannot selectively cite a scholar, especially if the scholar is liberal and you are conservative - this is precisely what the JWs are famous for (e.g. their work against the Trinity quotes from "authorities" like "The Paganism in our Christianity," which just so happens to also say the Bible is full of pagan and other errors, but this latter detail is ignored.)>>

Me: Excellent point, and it is not just the JWs who are experts and ‘cherry-picking’ scholarly sources; Mormons apologists love to cite scholars like Margaret Barker concerning her work on 1st Temple Judaism—however, as I have shown in my series on Mormonism, they fail to follow her research to the end conclusions, for those conclusions are damaging to their position.

>>This is why certain of the Early Church Fathers were venerated as Saints/Doctors, since their testimony was considered genuine and reliable guide for early Christianity. When one throws away this distinction, they've made secular historians their authority rather than a living testimony of Christians led by the Spirit.>>

Me: Indeed, yet for some reason unknown to me, a good number of epologists seem to be unable to grasp the implications here.

>>This article sums up the heart of the problem:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/the-tradition-and-the-lexicon/>>

Me: Thanks for the link, will check it out later today.

>>Protestant interpretation of Scripture and the facts is grounded on (the shifting sand) of secular scholarship, since they put no stake in a reliable Church Tradition or Church Teachers. Even a Protestant scholar falls into the category of secular scholarship, since their analysis is based on a scientific approach to the current data and not some Tradition as a standard, nor do they claim any sort of personal Christian Teaching authority. So, for example, if a Protestant wants to study "justification," they will turn to a secular lexicon which itself attempts to define the meaning based on a grammatical word analysis and not any sort of Analogy of Faith. And the problem is, when a new wave of scholarship emerges, it carries the lexicons and other such academia wherever it wants and drags Protestantism along with it. This is why there is a terrible divide in Reformed Protestantism now with New Perspective and Federal Vision scholars and Pastors appearing (and the general trend of Conservative Reformed appealing almost dogmatically to Reformed Confessions while the New Perspective scholars appeal to current Biblical scholarship).>>

Me: My thread, A “Reformed civil war” clearly documents that the NP and FV movements are not the only soteriological divides within the history of the Reformed camp.

As for your “shifting sand” comment, note the following from the conservative Reformed scholar, Robert Letham:

“The post-Reformation slide into a privatized, individualist religion that neglects the church and the world has led many to downplay the ecumenical creeds in favor of the latest insights from biblical studies, whatever may be the motivation behind them.” (The Holy Trinity, p. 5)

Me: Interestingly enough, John, in the combox of a thread over at BA, recommends Robert Reymond’s systematic theology, a book which clearly downplays the ecumenical creeds.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

You posted:

>>Nick,
Problem with David and his "throwing out another issue" to sidetrack the real issue, is that mentioning these books by Dever seems to be a ploy to "cause a little doubt" and seems to be subtly recommending somehow that Dever is a credible source for the OT history and archeology - and these books seek to undermine everything the OT and NT and church history is built on, if monotheism developed out of the polytheism.>>

Me: First, I do not accept Dever conclusions which come via his presupposition that archeology and secular history take precedence over the Biblical record.

Second, this is not most certainly not a case of "throwing out another issue", the primary issue remains the same—i.e.the presupposition that archeology and secular history take precedence over the Biblical record.

>>No wonder David is open to Bahai'ism - he seems to actually believe that Dever is right.>>

Me: WRONG!!! I do not believe that “Dever is right”, for I reject his presupposition that archeology and secular history take precedence over the Biblical record.

>>David,
You are grasping at straws here and complicating matters by adding in another side-track on a completely different issue than Lampe and the early history of Rome. The available evidence for us concerning the OT is a completely different matter. Try to focus only on Lampe and the specifics, as John does.>>

Me: I am not “grasping at straws here and complicating matters by adding in another side-track on a completely different issue than Lampe and the early history of Rome”; rather, yet one more time, THE ISSUE concerns presupposition that archeology and secular history take precedence over the Biblical record.

>>John has begun a good refutation of that garbage that Dever is polluting your mind with.>>

Me: Since I clearly deny the presupposition that archeology and secular history take precedence over the Biblical record, Dever IS NOT “polluting” my “mind”. If any ‘pollution’ is going on, it is happening to those of embrace the liberal, critical scholarship of Lampe who, like Dever, functions under the presupposition that archeology and secular history take precedence over the Biblical record.

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont’d

Ken:>>Better to re-read the Bible from cover to cover systematically, with faith and prayer ("Lord, speak to me"! Cry out!) and stop reading too many other books that destroy faith. You have already read them, and you know deep down that they destroy faith in Monotheism and the Trinity and the true God of the Bible, so there is no need to keep rehashing all these atheistic and secular theories. "Be renewed in the spirit of your mind" (Ephesians 4:20-24; Romans 12:1-2; Colossians 3:1-17) I recommend you listen to the Bible being read by Max McLean so you can focus and not pull down another book in your vast library that creates doubt in your mind and soul and causes you to be open to such false religions as Bahai'ism.>>

Me: Ken, I reject Dever’s theories, and I reject Lampe’s theories—I do so because I reject the presupposition that archeology and secular history take precedence over the Biblical record. It is my sincere wish that you and John put aside the theories of liberal, critical scholars like Lampe.

>>You still have not answered the questions on Bahai'ism (in the last 2 comboxes) and you make no comments on my exhortation to you.>>

Me: Have been very busy, will try to get to it ASAP, but given what is ‘on the plate’, it will probably be tomorrow. When I do respond, it will be in a new thread here at AF, for the combox of the thread at BA veered off course.

>>Question:

Why are there so many links to sites that have nothing to do with the subjects here? (the Spanish links to this post) at bottom?>>

Me: Have no idea why he/she/they are linking to this thread—yet one more Blogger mystery…


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David,
Thanks for your clearer answers.

Sorry, I got a little excited in that last post.

I am glad you don't agree with Dever's take on things - I understand what you are saying, but it sure seemed like you were enjoying throwing out the "Dever" material as something credible.

The problem is, the Dever material is seeking to overthrow the OT completely.

Whereas while Lampe is wrong on his conclusions about 2 Timothy and Biblical history. (obviously Aquila and Priscilla returned to Ephesus); his specific research on Rome does not "overthrow" the Bible text, but it does overthrow the subsequent history of the Roman Catholic claims of the bishop of Rome and all the consequential development after that of centuries of false doctrines.

Do you see the difference ?,- the specific things that Lampe concludes about Rome and RCC claims (that Protestants agree with), does not affect the Biblical text, as the claims of Dever on the OT.

John Bugay said...

David, I've posted this back home, too. It's from the Pontifical Biblical Commission. You can tell me, how these folks are not being "inconsistent" with this?

And Nick, what horse is it that your Magisterium is really staying with?

***

...the very nature of biblical texts means that interpreting them will require continued use of the historical-critical method, at least in its principal procedures. The Bible, in effect, does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human history. In a way that differs from tenets of other religions, the message of the Bible is solidly grounded in history. It follows that the biblical writings cannot be correctly understood without an examination of the historical circumstances that shaped them. "Diachronic" research will always be indispensable for exegesis. Whatever be their own interest and value, "synchronic" approaches cannot replace it. To function in a way that will be fruitful, synchronic approaches should accept the conclusions of the diachronic, at least according to their main lines.

But granted this basic principle, the synchronic approaches (the rhetorical, narrative, semiotic and others) are capable, to some extent at least, of bringing about a renewal of exegesis and making a very useful contribution. The historical-critical method, in fact, cannot lay claim to enjoying a monopoly in this area. It must be conscious of its limits, as well as of the dangers to which it is exposed. Recent developments in philosophical hermeneutics and, on the other hand, the observations which we have been able to make concerning interpretation within the biblical tradition and the tradition of the church have shed light upon many aspects of the problem of interpretation that the historical-critical method has tended to ignore. Concerned above all to establish the meaning of texts by situating them in their original historical context, this method has at times shown itself insufficiently attentive to the dynamic aspect of meaning and to the possibility that meaning can continue to develop. When historical-critical exegesis does not go as far as to take into account the final result of the editorial process but remains absorbed solely in the issues of sources and stratification of texts, it fails to bring the exegetical task to completion.

Nick said...

John,

The Catholic Church isn't driven by "scholars" but Magisterium. And the faithful Catholic will strive to live within the parameters laid out by the Magisterium. For example, take Lamentabili Sane, a syllabus of errors against Modernism:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

Here are some highlights of *condemned* propositions:

1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.

2. The Church's interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.

3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

19. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes.

24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .

25. The assent of faith ultimately rests on a mass of probabilities .

36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order.

64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

This is a clear condemnation of the liberal mindset that runs rampant in Protestantism but Protestantism has no way of condemning.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission and other similar groups have been stripped of their teaching authority and are more or less over run by liberals following in the footsteps of liberal Protestantism. It's a large game of patting eachother on the back with PhDs from liberal Universities.

p.s. the quote you gave actually isn't that objectionable.

Blogahon said...

All - John's quote above is not complete and does not do justice to Benedict's position on the historical critical method, but we all know that.

See Paul Hoffer's comment at 8:11 AM, September 01, 2010 here.

Blogahon said...

All - John's quote above is not complete and does not do justice to Benedict's position on the historical critical method, but we all know that.

See Paul Hoffer's comment at 8:11 AM, September 01, 2010 here.

David Waltz said...

Hi all,

Posts are beginning to show up in my email account that have vanished from the comboxes. I will be attempting to restore the vanishing posts that I am aware of. If I have missed any posts that have disappeared, and you still want them posted, please email me.

BTW, I am seriously thinking about changing to WordPress and would like any out there in cyberland who read this post to share your experiences and thoughts conerning WordPress with me.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Nick has left a new comment on your post "John Bugay, Peter Lampe and William Dever":

John,

The Catholic Church isn't driven by "scholars" but Magisterium. And the faithful Catholic will strive to live within the parameters laid out by the Magisterium. For example, take Lamentabili Sane, a syllabus of errors against Modernism:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

Here are some highlights of *condemned* propositions:

1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.

2. The Church's interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.

3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

19. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes.

24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .

25. The assent of faith ultimately rests on a mass of probabilities .

36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order.

64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

This is a clear condemnation of the liberal mindset that runs rampant in Protestantism but Protestantism has no way of condemning.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission and other similar groups have been stripped of their teaching authority and are more or less over run by liberals following in the footsteps of liberal Protestantism. It's a large game of patting eachother on the back with PhDs from liberal Universities.

p.s. the quote you gave actually isn't that objectionable.



Posted by Nick to Articuli Fidei at September 1, 2010 11:56 AM

[Link to Nick's Blogger profile: http://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663]