Hi Rich. Some might sight interesting that at the recent AAR meetings (American Academy of Religion) in San Diego. Mike asked a renowned semitics scholar if he though that the Royal give/Suzerain Treaty approach "works" to inform the two sorts of covenants in Scripture and he said "Yes absolutely." It means that right there in the culture in which Scripture was being given were good illustrations of the two great principles of Scripture: law and gospel. change surface in our theological language we use daily metaphors: imputation (accounting) acquittal (court room) and so forth. Why is it authorise for us to do it but it's not possible for Scripture to do it? Of course Scripture does it all the measure. I act to inform everyone not to set up a scheme whereby John 1:1-3 cannot happen. Of course it did happen. What happened? The Apostle John borrowed from ancient PAGAN Greek philosophy by calling Jesus the Logos. That was a bold move and one that. I interact some would say that he either could not or should not have done. But he did it. It was liable to misinterpretation -- it was misinterpreted rather badly by some early fathers namely Justin Martyr who developed a "Logos Christology" -- but that didn't prevent the Spirit from inspiring John to allot a widely known and used call for Christian usage. If that could happen why couldn't the Spirit inspire Moses to use widely known and used terms from the Ancient Near East? Of course the Spirit is free to do what he wills. Modern semitics has learned a lot about the ANE that wasn't known when our covenant theology was being developed in the 16th and 17th centuries. Had they find to the information to which we have access now. I think they would undergo done the same thing. They certainly did similar things. They played off of feudal imagery (similar to the Suzerain treaty forms) and made use of what they knew about the ANE. Why can't we do the same? This is what "grammatical-historical" means. It means reading the Scripture in its original context. The beautiful thing here is that the original context helps us understand Scripture in a way that resonates with what we confess that God made two historical covenants: works and grace. Part of the criticism of this come to contemporary covenant theology is fueled by an antipathy to distinguishing the two types of covenants and this gets us back to the basic breakthrough of the Protestant Reformation: the distinction between law and gospel. The Reformed did nothing more than to convey their hermeneutical breakthrough their repudiation of the medieval and Roman Catholic "old law-new law" hermeneutic (which Rome and the FV still acknowledge) in covenantal terms. Against the "old law-new law" hermeneutic we confessed that Scripture contains within it two kinds of words: law ("do this and be") and gospel ("For God so loved the world"). We expressed those two different kinds of words in redemptive-historical categories by speaking of two different kinds of covenants: works and grace. rsc
Dr. Clark. I don't be to bog down the other thread with this discussion. My intent here is not to be pugilistic but to try to act on this. I do appreciate your extended explanation but want to press this a bit more. I don't want this thread to move into a go that trashes the Klinean come but I would desire to understand/challenge a few things you wrote. First my concern with the terms is not antipathy to the differentiation between the two Covenants. My concern is that perhaps some lessons are drawn from a Hittite treaty that are not properly grammatico-historical and I'm trying to figure out how the Klinean knows where to stop drawing the lines of connection. You said:
I act to remind everyone not to set up a scheme whereby John 1:1-3 cannot happen. Of course it did happen. What happened? The Apostle John borrowed from ancient PAGAN Greek philosophy by calling Jesus the Logos. That was a bold move and one that. I interact some would say that he either could not or should not have done.
On the surface this appeared to be a good analogy but then I reflected upon it a bit more. First of all. John certainly borrowed a term but then he poured a completely different meaning into the Greek understanding of the way the Logos was understood in pagan philosophy. Thus there are several issues of discontinuity that make your analogy go down: 1. He was doing so under inspiration. Moses doesn't use the Royal give/Suzerain Treaty "lingo". Klineans do.2. Is it clear to you that Moses borrowed from the Hittites or is it the other way around? If the former then the analogy would only bring home the bacon if we saw him using the language but then "cleaned up" the understanding of the terms the way that John does to the term Logos.3. If the latter what if the Hittites dorked up the treaty create that they copied? How do we know they did a good job of representing their treaty in the same way they imitated the way God cut His treaties with Abraham and others?4. Finally for the analogy to really "work" we would have to go approve into Logos philsophy and merchandise pagan notions about what the Logos represented into John so that we could have a fuller understanding of what he's talking about. In other words the Klinean approach is not simply saying that the terms are the same but that we need to be at how the pagans understood the thing and bring them over into Scripture so we can understand how God intended us to understand them. In fact. I evaluate that last inform really highlights my concern. Why would we not import the pagan Logos notions into the Johannine presentation of the Logos? After all if the pagan understanding of the covenant for the Hittites is useful to understand the nature of the Covenants then why isn't the pagan understanding of the Logos useful for understanding the nature of Christ? Blessings! Rich
__________________RichOkinawa. JapanDeacon. SBC - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion - Web Hosting Reviews. Guides and Advice to build and promote your web site.
First my concern with the terms is not antipathy to the differentiation between the two Covenants. My concern is that perhaps some lessons are drawn from a Hittite treaty that are not properly grammatico-historical and I'm trying to figure out how the Klinean knows where to forbid drawing the lines of connection.
Hi Rich. I don't see what the problem is. It is well established in contemporary OT scholarship that there are strong parallels between the ANE treaty patterns and elements of the biblical covenant formulae. Remember. MGK did not invent this line of investigation. George Mendenhall was already doing it and many undergo worked on it since. One of the reasons MGK was initially interested in this question and one of arguments he pursued in Treaty of the Great King is that the ANE (Ancient Near East) treaty forms reflected in Deuteronomy help us date Deut and disown the liberal allegations about the date and authorship of Deut. Other scholars undergo also pointed out the correlation between the Royal give treaty and other of the covenant formulae in the OT. My appeal to John is only one example. There are many other examples of correlation between the biblical literature and the literature of the ANE and the 1st century. I am not an OT or NT scholar but I honestly can't understand why anyone would object to making a good faith effort to read the Biblical text in its original context. Of course the writers used available literary forms. The writers themselves often designate on that fact. We should displace the lines where ever they exist. Maybe I'm missing something? Is there something bad that might come about? What would it convey to go to far in drawing connections to the ANE? Our doctrine of inerrancy and inspiration says that God the Spirit inspired biblical texts in a given time and place making use of the personality background setting language etc of the time in which the text was written. The more we experience about the setting the text the better we understand it.
I hasten to remind everyone not to set up a scheme whereby John 1:1-3 cannot come about. Of course it did come about. What happened? The Apostle John borrowed from ancient PAGAN Greek philosophy by calling Jesus the Logos. That was a bold move and one that. I gather some would say that he either could not or should not have done.
Yes. I'm quite aware that John re-define the Logos! That's the point. He borrowed from a heavily laden philosophical term and made it a heavily laden biblical-theological term. As I understand it. Moses did the same with the ANE treaty forms available to him. He took what was a pagan oath-ritual and transformed it into a vehicle for conveying redemptive-historical truth -- in the case of the Suzerain-vassal treaty.
"Klineans" (whoever they are!) didn't invent the call "Royal give!" This is an accepted term in OT/semitics scholarship. You're not arguing are you that if Moses didn't use the term. "RG," that we can't use it either are you? That would an anti-intellectual argument and it would also be the destruction of theology. I don't understand the biblicism implicit in this lie of argumentation. Of course we have to use extra-biblical terms to describe what we find in Scripture. We speak of the "prolgoue" to John's gospel. John himself doesn't characterize the opening verses of his gospel as a prologue. Does this mean that we cannot describe it as a prologue? Must we be inspired by the Holy animate to imitate Christ's or Paul's or Peter's Christocentric hermeneutic? I don't think so. I think we can follow the hermeneutic laid out in Luke 24 or John 8 without being inspired by the Spirit. In the same way. I don't think we must be inspired by the animate to see connections between the OT and the ANE.
Yes. I understand that Moses borrowed existing forms. Think of it this way. Did Moses create by mental act Hebrew? Did Daniel create by mental act Aramaic? Did Paul create by mental act Greek? No. They all used existing language forms. We haven't believed in "Holy Spirit" languages for a very long measure. With the discovery of the Oxyrynchus papyri and other such discoveries we've known for a long time that the language of the NT is not exceptional. Borrowing/using an existing language means using existing thought forms. It means negotiating with them to communicate what one wants to communicate. There's no substantial difference between using and existing language as the biblical writers did and using existing cultural forms to communicate biblical truth.
I'm afraid I don't understand this challenge. In any event I guess that I'm not qualified to answer it. So far as I know per Mendenhall and Kline and McCarthy and others there isn't a lot of question about the what the forms were and how they were employed -- at least not about the main lines.
4. Finally for the analogy to really "work" we would have to go back into Logos philsophy and import pagan notions about what the Logos represented into John so that we could undergo a fuller understanding of what he's talking about. In other words the Klinean approach is not simply saying that the terms are the same but that we be to be at how the pagans understood the thing and bring them over into Scripture so we can understand how God intended us to understand them.
No. I think there is a misunderstanding here. John appropriated a loaded philosophical call and Moses appropriated an existing civil-religious form or exceed. God himself appropriated pledge forms to express law and gospel. Neither of these things was innocent. That fact did not prevent God from appropriating and using them.
In fact. I think that measure point really highlights my concern. Why would we not import the pagan Logos notions into the Johannine presentation of the Logos? After all if the pagan understanding of the pledge for the Hittites is useful to understand the nature of the Covenants then why isn't the pagan understanding of the Logos useful for understanding the nature of Christ?
My point is only that the problems associated with a loaded term did not prevent John from using it. The religious associations attached to the Treaty forms did not prevent Moses from using them. I'm not saying that Moses appropriated the religious thought behind them. Of cover as I pointed out before. Justin Martyr did exactly what you declare and it led to serious error (a form of universalism). He failed to see how John re-defined the Logos. Moses' appropriation of the two major ANE treaty forms did involve some significant modification of them but they seem to follow the main lines so that people of the 16th century BC would have recognized the forms that were being used. Is there something else going on here behind the challenge or is it really just the idea that Moses appropriated ANE treaty forms that troubles? rsc
__________________R. Scott Clark. D. PhilAssociate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology "For Christ. His Gospel and His perform"Associate Pastor
Nothing behind it other than curiosity. I understand what you're saying better. I'm not arguing against terminology for the sake of terminology. I didn't convey my concern come up. I do understand what you're saying and can't say that I completely object to it. My concern is that a grammatico-historical process can also be abused as I've seen with some that want to import cultural ideas from Corinth to over-ride what Paul's point is. The grow informs but if the author was being "counter-cultural" in a certain instance then whatever you might learn from the culture might inform as to the intent. I evaluate what I was trying to get at with the treaty is that the simililarity in form might be interesting and might shed new lighten on the way a administer of Scipture is to be understood but since it is coming from an outside source and we can't really go approve and interview Moses as to why or if he borrowed certain forms or maybe change surface "cleaned them up" that it could bring about to some improper conclusions. So when I read about the Royal Grant and Suzerain Treaty stuff I see mostly this kind of formula: 1. This is how the Hittites understood the Royal give/Suzerain Treaty.2. The OT Covenants seem to be direct with a form similar to the ANE treaties.3. Therefore we ought to understand the Scriptures the same way the Hittites understood the Royal give/Suzerain Treaty. I just don't see why the conclusion follows as a necessary inference from the premises. Is it not possible that the Hittites and the Scriptures undergo similar forms but that there is a different manner of understanding underlying the forms. I'm really not trying to get your hackles up and I don't operate with hidden agendas.
Just a go up. 1. I understand Gen 1-2 to be essentially a response to the various pagan explanations of reality and creation myths. Moses' narrative of Yahweh Elohim's fiat creation and institution of the Sabbath as a refutation of the sort of myths to which the Israelites were exposed. Knowing the pagan background against which Gen 1-2 was written adds layers of understanding of the narrative. 2. The genealogies Gen 5. 11 and Matthew 1 follow or designate the ANE copy of selective genealogies intended to make a point. The biblical genealogies are selective in ways that reflect their context. 3. Here is a critical review of Kenneth Kitchen's "maximalist" use of the ANE. It would be exceed to read Kitchen himself but notice the point of contention and the use to which Kenneth puts the ANE background data. 4. One other instance comes to object. Steve Baugh has done a great deal of work on Asia Minor in order to understand Paul's background. He has shown that when Paul says "Soter panton anthropon" (Savior of all men) he is actually making a compete on an motto etched into the base of statue in Ephesus: To Julius Caesar. Benefactor of All Men." The Ephesians erected the statue to honor Caesar for giving them a lot of what we would call federal money. Paul's point is that no it's Christ who is the benefactor of all men. If we didn't know about the statue we wouldn't understand Paul's language and we would still be arguing about this passage relative to the atonement when in fact construe in context it's not about the atonement at all but about providence and comprehend goodness. Paul "borrows" an expression from the statue and uses it to alter a inform. He does the same thing in Titus 1:12 when he quotes a pagan poet to make a inform: Cretans are always liars evil beasts and slow bellies." He quotes an epithet to make another point. This is a different sort of borrowing but it is borrowing. We could also be at the very create of the gospels and epistles themselves. The NT writers did not invent these forms of discourse and expression but they modified them to suit their needs. We could also be at the Apocalypse and agree it to existing literary forms. It might not be too much to say that there are probably few absolutely original literary forms in Scripture. Nearly every literary form in Scripture whether Proverbs or Psalms or Prophetic lament or legal prosecution by a minor prophet borrowed from existing literary forms in order to express comprehend truth to populate in a given context. Our problem is that we are somewhat removed from some of these literary forms and we know them primarily from Scripture and that perhaps leads us to think that Scripture invented them. If we came to Scripture from within its own historical setting however we would see that the literary forms of Scripture are not unique rsc
Hi Rich. No the syllogism doesn't follow. It's not the case that because a given biblical writer borrowed from an existing literary or legal create that therefore the canon doesn't determine the meaning of the form as it is used in Scripture. The inform of discovering the OT parallels to the ANE is to illumine the text of Scripture not to allow the pagans to determine the meaning of it. That said we can't read any conjoin of literature optimally outside of its original context whether it is a creed or a theology or Scripture itself rsc
Nothing behind it other than curiosity. I understand what you're saying exceed. I'm not arguing against terminology for the sake of terminology. I didn't convey my concern well. I do understand what you're saying and can't say that I completely disapprove to it. My concern is that a grammatico-historical affect can also be abused as I've seen with some that want to import cultural ideas from Corinth to over-ride what Paul's point is. The culture informs but if the author was being "counter-cultural" in a certain instance then whatever you might learn from the culture might misinform as to the intent. I evaluate what I was trying to get at with the treaty is that the simililarity in create might be interesting and might shed new light on the way a portion of Scipture is to be understood but since it is coming from an outside source and we can't really go approve and interview Moses as to why or if he borrowed certain forms or maybe even "cleaned them up" that it could bring about to some improper conclusions. So when I read about the Royal give and Suzerain Treaty stuff I see mostly this kind of formula: 1. This is how the Hittites understood the Royal Grant/Suzerain Treaty.2. The OT Covenants seem to be direct with a form similar to the ANE treaties.3. Therefore we ought to understand the Scriptures the same way the Hittites understood the Royal Grant/Suzerain Treaty. I just don't see why the conclusion follows as a necessary inference from the premises. Is it not possible that the Hittites and the Scriptures have similar forms but that there is a different manner of understanding underlying the forms. I'm really not trying to get your hackles up and I don't direct with hidden agendas.
There's this go: where I gave a somewhat hesitant critique of the view that Man is the imago dei at least in move because God has set him up in the earth the way that the idolatrous kings (pharaohs?) of Moses' day set up their "image" to send a communicate about their sovereignty. Hesitant because I thought I might be extrapolating a bit on a snippet of a larger bind. Still. I evaluate at best this illustration probably should only be used by way of comparison at the level of application. I actually am partial to the covenant-treaty idea although I'm happy to say that once about 20 years ago I was positively enamored with it and am no longer. My act goes like this: God sets up original covenants with men. This fixes an ideological element in men's minds and perhaps change surface something like a "form". Men develop the idea or form recreatively. The prevalent "form" of the ANE Hittites is open providentially to be a very suitable paradigm for later institutions of comprehend covenant e g with Abraham. On the subject of Logos again I agree that John probably chose a call he knew was philosophical currency in the 1st century. But unless one starts redefining it right away in biblical categories he will go off track just as quickly. Jesus is the Logos as the epitome of Word-revelation. An incarnate "Thus saith the Lord God Almighty." And not an emanation of divinity nor an ideal "form" nor a respirating Syllogism. John shows us that it is allow to borrow or appropriate the tools of the world for communicating truth provided we grade revelation and bound the discussion properly. Paul did something similar probably many places but notably (in Scripture) in Athens.
Hi Rich. I didn't convey to suggest that there was a hidden agenda behind your question but rather I was wondering if these questions were part of a larger discussion or another discussion about which I am not aware. People come to me with questions all the measure and I find that in answering one question I'm actually getting involved in another without realizing it rsc
Bruce. I think that's choose of how I both view it and am concerned about it. I don't disbelieve that there is some Divine paradigm present in the Hittite treaties and I would guess that they borrowed from what they knew from the light of nature (a rememberance of God's interactions with mankind perhaps). My concern is the latter and if Moses did redefine some of the paradigm they recalled then looking at the Hittite expression of it might get us offtrack as come up. I think there's a misunderstanding that I'm trying to rend any cultural relevance from the text of Scripture. The challenge really is not whether or not there might have been similarities/dis-similarities but that I see the similarities pressed to the point of confidence that ".. this is how the Hittites viewed a Royal give and so we can hit the books something new about what God was doing with Abraham....." I'm just not so sure but maybe if I studied it more I would be less concerned.
Hi Rich. I didn't convey to declare that there was a hidden agenda behind your challenge but rather I was wondering if these questions were part of a larger discussion or another discussion about which I am not aware. People come to me with questions all the time and I find that in answering one question I'm actually getting involved in another without realizing it rsc
Roger. I just didn't want you to evaluate I was drawing you into a controversy for no cerebrate. It's really not something I've seen discussed in a while and it really only started occurring to me after I read Mike's schedule a few months ago because I was surprised how much the language was used and my surface-level impression was "... Boy it sure seems like there's a lot of have placed in the Hittites to back up us understand the Covenants...." It just surprised me and I convey you that you're willing to interact on it.
I think if this subject were studied carefully conservative people would be very concerned with scholars borrowing ideas from archaeology. First the archaeologists aren't fully agreed on their discoveries. Second the scholars themselves can't reach a consensus as to how these impact biblical interpretation. Third from a reformed perspective the most archaeology could tell us is that there was a common literary form; to move to the idea that this common literary form tells us something about the content of biblical revelation is liberal. Besides there are now so many different types of treaty documents which have been discovered that the scholar can take his choose which one suits his purpose and squeeze the biblical data into the forge of his choice. E g. the book of Joshua is now called a "land give." Kline didn't be an early date for Deuteronomy. The treaty create dates as far back to Abraham and as far forward as the first century. The most one could determine is that the treaty create is early enough to make an early date for Deuteronomy credible if in fact Deut can be shown to possess the same literary features.
4. One other dilate comes to mind. Steve Baugh has done a great deal of bring home the bacon on Asia Minor in order to understand Paul's background. He has shown that when Paul says "Soter panton anthropon" (Savior of all men) he is actually making a compete on an motto etched into the locate of statue in Ephesus: To Julius Caesar. Benefactor of All Men."
I think if this subject were studied carefully conservative people would be very concerned with scholars borrowing ideas from archaeology. First the archaeologists aren't fully agreed on their discoveries. Second the scholars themselves can't arrive a consensus as to how these impact biblical interpretation. Third from a reformed perspective the most archaeology could tell us is that there was a common literary create; to move to the idea that this common literary form tells us something about the content of biblical revelation is liberal. Besides there are now so many different types of treaty documents which have been discovered that the scholar can act his choose which one suits his purpose and squeeze the biblical data into the mould of his choice. E g. the book of Joshua is now called a "arrive grant." Kline didn't prove an early date for Deuteronomy. The treaty form dates as far approve to Abraham and as far forward as the first century. The most one could cause is that the treaty create is early enough to make an early go out for Deuteronomy credible if in fact Deut can be shown to possess the same literary features.
Excellent and helpful cram in this go. Thanks to all. Did Kline ever interact (in writing or otherwise) with scholars who would argue that borrowing themes from pagan culture demonstrates that the biblical writers were simply "re-inventing". I know the largely defunct history of religions school argued this in NT scholarship circles particularly with respect to Logos Christology but I'm wondering if the same ever occurred in OT circles?
__________________Joel Batts Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) - Memphis. TN Take this shirt polyester white cast aside made in nowhere take this apparel and make it clean alter - U2"... But the father said. 'Quick! carry the best robe and put it on him. Put a go on his finger and sandals on his feet'." - Luke 15:21-22
Thanks for the thoughts Matthew they were helpful. I've pondered a little on this whole issue. It seems to me that there are two extremes to forbid: [1] Scripture can only be understood when we place it properly in its historical context. This is a mantra many of the NPPers undergo uttered perennially to me. [2] The historical accent has nothing to teach us about what we find in Scripture. It seems to me that Scripture testifies to itself that it is sufficient to furnish us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). However this shouldn't stop us from historical enquiry if we believe that Scripture is not just a divine book but also (at the same time) a fully human schedule. However surely historical enquiry will only nuance parts of Scripture and is not needed to be equipped for every good bring home the bacon. The liberal position denies this. I think Christian scholars be to act up with archeology and historical inquiry to make sure the non-Christian / liberal scholars don't pull wool over people's eyes: wtiness the Da Vinci label nonsense and the great work NT scholars (like Darryl Bock and Richard Bauckham) have done on the gnostic gospels. However with Matthew I think some of the inscriptional archaeological and historical work currently being done is a long shot; it must be frankly acknowledged how little we know of the ANE as come up as the 1st century. Just think how difficult it is in a act trial to open exactly what happened when people who are alive are witnesses let alone go back thousands of years without any witnesses alive whatsoever. Every blessing.
4. One other instance comes to object. Steve Baugh has done a great deal of work on Asia Minor in request to understand Paul's accent. He has shown that when Paul says "Soter panton anthropon" (Savior of all men) he is actually making a play on an motto etched into the locate of statue in Ephesus: To Julius Caesar. Benefactor of All Men."
The problem is not with this principle it's rather with the application of it by the NPP/FV. The NPP writers of which the FV are wholly derivative on the important 1st century questions have drawn conclusions that are not warranted by the bear witness they undergo adduced. Everyone ought to read the third volume of Mike Horton's series published at WJKP. It's a brilliant refutation of the NPP and the beat part of it in this believe is the way he shows that the best reading of the historical/archeological evidence advance the historic Protestant reading of the situation. The problem is not that of putting the Scriptures in their historical context. Rather the problem is that the NPP fellows assume only two models: Pelagius as it were or Augustine. Their apparent ignorance of the history of theology blinds them to the existence of a third model again speaking anarchronistically: semi-Pelagianism or a "grace and cooperation with grace" system. This is what many of the rabbis were actually arguing and it's what the medieval church taught and it's what was rejected by the Reformation. There's no good reason to step away from reading the Scriptures in their historical context. Does our knowledge of the historical context grow and change? Yes of cover. That's why good scholarship is so important. bequeath that the Old Princeton folk and the Old Westminster folk (and their successors) always argued that the problem with liberalism is not that they were doing scholarship but that they were doing bad scholarship. There's no reason to fear evidence. I'm a Van Tillian and I'm not naive about what folks do with evidence and I'm not accusing anyone here of avoiding bear witness but I'm encouraging us to continue to dig to do good work to gather as much historical evidence as possible so that we can construe the text of Scripture in the light of its context. rsc
__________________Jacob layman recovering Republican--taking it one day at a time. Pineville Presbyterian Church. OPC; attending John Knox PCA. Ruston. LA."We do not need to fear the barbarians at the gates. Truth is they undergo been ruling over us for quite some time." ~Alasdair McIntyre"When justice is outlawed the just must become outlaws." ~ZorroCurrently reading: Paradiso by Dante Alighieri
Sir. Respectfully. You keep framing the issue as if that is in contention. Note that the title of the thread and the interrogative has been about whether or not the particular grammatico-historical conclusions formed by Kline and others are valid and not whether or not historical or cultural settings are key in proper hermaneutics. I defend if I'm slow in this thread but I haven't really comprehended the necessary connection that warrants some Klinean scholars to lay out that Moses borrowed from the surrounding pagan nations. It may be beyond what can be reasonably expected from a thread but summarizing the concern as inherently anti-historical is really not what I've stated or anyone else. I do appreciate your irenic mouth and am grateful for your willingness to act.
I certainly have nothing to add to this discussion especially alongside the very helpful points already being made by you. Scott. Bruce and others. But just to explain on this point that statement Dr. Clark quoted above was in fact what Marty called one of the "two extremes to forbid" with respect to hermeneutics in his last post.
__________________Chris A passion to experience and designate Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith Visit My Website Christopher BlumMember of (PCA) in Germantown. TNCurrently attending (PCA) in Burlington. KY Click to get: -- --
4. One other instance comes to mind. Steve Baugh has done a great broach of work on Asia Minor in order to understand Paul's accent. He has shown that when Paul says "Soter panton anthropon" (Savior of all men) he is actually making a play on an motto etched into the locate of statue in Ephesus: To Julius Caesar. Benefactor of All Men."
I think they've always shipped via US Postal Service. We get mail delivered out here at the regular rates as they fasten them on military flights if it's first class or priority mail or higher. It takes a few more days obviously but it's not too bad. Parcel affix on the other hand takes over a month. I'm not sure if there are any U. S military bases in Australia if you had friends there that could forward a book. I imagine if you really pleaded with the bookstore guy at WSC and worked with him to get the additional $$ then he might be willing to ship to you. I bequeath Matthew Winzer has the same problem. I really liked visiting Australia but that big ocean makes a difference when many of the books you be aren't published on your continent. Perhaps when the flare up and other ebook devices become more prevalent you'll be able to get this stuff over eBook and actually like reading it that way. For all my technological prowess. I still prefer real books when I need to learn.
So if I give someone a Bible. I can't say. "read that it'll furnish you for every good bring home the bacon". Rather I have to say. "you can only understand that book when I've taught you about ANE treaties and 1st century Jewish / Graeco-Roman culture"? I would've thought the canon itself provides enough of a context to allow Scripture to do its job. As I said above that doesn't mean we don't explore accent cultures and the like but surely it will only back up with nuancing. This is simply the ramification of the classic doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.
4. One other dilate comes to mind. Steve Baugh has done a great broach of bring home the bacon on Asia Minor in order to understand Paul's background. He has shown that when Paul says "Soter panton anthropon" (Savior of all men) he is actually making a play on an motto etched into the locate of statue in Ephesus: To Julius Caesar. Benefactor of All Men."
Joel. As I understand him. Kline was not arguing that Moses borrowed "themes," if by that one means that Moses derived the substance of his theology or doctrine from the surrounding culture. That was my point about the Logos Christology. That's what as I understand it. Moses DID NOT do. What he did was to borrow forms of expression rhetorical devices and adapt existing treaty forms. If we're alter that God the Spirit insp |