The Elhanan Hermeneutic
Jesus, Goliath and Armstrongism
By Scout
An observant scholar wrote that Jews regard the Bible as a problem to be solved whereas Christians believe it is a message to be proclaimed. The former view results in midrash and the latter view tends toward Biblical Literalism. Armstrongists have long held the Biblical Literalist view, often citing the statement of Jesus where he says in John 10:35: “… And the scripture cannot be broken”. In whatever context, whether midrash or literalism, there is a need to figure out who killed Goliath. Was it David or Elhanan? Or does it matter? The slaying of Goliath is much more than a children’s story. It is about how the Bible was curated and how we interpret it.
The Biblical data that must be examined looks like this (ESV):
1. The Traditional Account in 1 Samuel 17:50: “So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him…” (Part of the Deuteronomistic History and was composed roughly 630-540 BCE. Samuel 1 and 2 were originally one book that was divided later in copies of the Old Testament.)
2. The Alternate Account in 2 Samuel 21:19: “And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite…”.
3. The Attempt at Reconciliation in 1 Chronicles 20:5: “And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.” (Chronicles probably reached its final form in the 4th Century BCE.)
Curation and Interpretation
It will be apparent to anyone who reads closely that the account of David in the OT is assembled from a number pericopes and is internally disjointed. First, we have an account of David in Samuel with a curious story arc. Did Saul know or did he not know David at the time of the contest with Goliath, for example? Several different traditions seem to have been documented by the scribes. Further, two different descriptions of the death of Goliath are recorded in Samuel, with victory being ascribed to David in a highly theatrical account and the victory ascribed to Elhanan in a passing comment.
The David-Ellhanan persisted in scripture for a very long time. Then a couple of centuries later, an attempt at reconciliation was made where an unknown scribe recounted that Elhanan really killed Goliath’s brother. And then the King James translators went back and inserted language (in italics in our modern print versions) in 2 Samuel 21:19 to make it appear to reflect the statement in Chronicles. An important point in understanding the curation of the Bible is that the Book of Samuel was not edited to make a smooth story arc. Both David and Elhanan are recorded as the slayers of Goliath. And the ancient compilers of the scripture knew this. They read and copied the material over and over again down through time. That the scribes did not edit out the contradictions is a compelling point. They have given the account a plausible timeline but they did not remove these contradictions.
It is as if the early scribes had a collection of inconsistent pericopes that were at parity with regard to provenance. So, they decided to just publish the whole body of material and let subsequent generations of scholars and readers sort it out. Then some later scribes decided that the discrepancies were too glaring and edited in a statement (I Chronicles 20:5) intended to give consistency. My guess is that this was an ad hoc rescue attempt and does not evidence that sometime in the passing of two centuries, the Jews discovered in a jar in a cave somewhere yet another pericope that suddenly cleared up the picture.
The upshot is that the Bible has been curated by people. It conveys valid principle without being accurate in every detail. The scribes did not stress over discrepancy. If the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984 had curated the Bible, it would be smoothly consistent from beginning to end, however inauthentic. The story of David does contain object lessons that we can all benefit from. But his slaying of Goliath might have been political theater. Post-Exilic Israel needed a hero. As Dr. Peter Enns stated, “God let his children tell the story.”
And in this, we have a broad hermeneutic, what I called The Elhanan Hermeneutic, for understanding scripture: The Bible may contain inconsistencies at the story detail level but it retains valid principle. This is an important issue of faith. If you want to place your faith on a foundation of textual inerrancy, you will die a miserable rhetorical death in battle with people like Bart Ehrman and Dennis Diehl. Some of the inconsistencies they cite are really there. Further, Biblical literalism will drive you to a rigorous Phariseeism that will harden your understanding against simple truth. The David and Goliath account is not a light topic for kids about a boy and a giant but about mature engagement with the Bible.
Jesus and the Law and the Prophets
Jesus knew the scriptures. At the age of twelve he spoke with the teachers in Jerusalem and they were amazed at his understanding of the scripture and the answers he gave to their questions. I don’t know if he had a memory of the scripture from prior to his incarnation, scripture that he himself inspired in its original, un-curated form or if he was studious and spent hours absorbing the scripture by reading in the local synagogue. The former view emphasizes Pre-existence and the latter Kenosis. Doesn’t make any difference. The point is, he knew the scripture exhaustively and made no attempt to put it all right. He did not settle the issue of whether it was David or Elhanan who was the slayer of Goliath. Or what to do about the Sabbath in Antarctica. Or many other fine points that fuel modern day controversy over the Torah.
This is because he fulfilled the scripture, it would be set aside and he would issue a New Testament that is based on principle and not letter. A message of love so profound that the David-Elhanan controversy withers away and nobody need care about the Sabbath in Antarctica. So, there was no need for careful preparation of the humanly curated Old Testament so it could continue to be used in pristine form in the New Testament Ekklesia. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets down to the jot and tittle level and issued a new legislation beginning with the Sermon on the Mount. The New Legislation bore similarity to the Old Legislation because both were instantiations of the eternal moral law of God but were custom tuned to time, place and people.
The Scripture Cannot be Broken
In John 10:35, Jesus stated that the “scripture cannot be broken.” Jesus is stating that the scripture as a body of writing has integrity. Based on the Greek, this means that the scripture cannot be loosed or dissolved. But at what level of meaning is this statement true? Does it extend down to the Elhanan or David level of detail? I think not. I believe this integrity of scripture resides at the level of principle. Most of us are able to read material and understand the principles behind the overt text. This reading-at-level hermeneutic means that we should exercise due diligence in addressing seeming inconsistencies in the Biblical text but there may be some sub-principle, detail level where some particular account might be inconsistent. Jews have wrestled with this and other issues throughout their history. Hence, the development of the midrash form of Biblical interpretation among the Rabbis. And it would be highly presumptuous for a group of people without any foundation in Judaism to decide that the Torah is binding and that they understand it completely from beginning to end. This presumption is implicit in both Biblical Literalism and the finely parsed criticisms of detractors of the Bible. The scripture is unbroken at the level of optimal meaning.
Closing Argument
The Elhanan Hermeneutic is a point of wisdom for those who study the scripture. All explanations of scripture are interpretations. HWA’s theological writing is an interpretation among other interpretations. Some explanations are quite interesting. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book based on the David and Goliath account titled “David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants.” In his explanation he offers the novel idea that Goliath may have had acromegaly, a form of hormone induced gigantism. There is some hint in the scripture that Goliath could not see very well – a symptom of acromegaly. Maybe Goliath was not the great agile champion we all envision. Interpreting data varies and if you believe the scripture is certain, you will encounter challenges to your faith. You will find yourself engaging in implausible rationalization, including blatant denial of evidence. And the source of faith is not to be found in apologetics but in Jesus Christ. C.S. Lewis writes of the Dwarves of Narnia who lost their faith: “They have chosen cunning instead of belief.” Relying on apologetics solely to shore up Biblical interpretation is relying on cunning. At some point cunning will prove inadequate – and the history of Tyre will not be what you think it is, for instance.
People who insist on the certainty of scripture, who do not factor in human curation, march in procession towards debacle. Walled redoubts of denial do not protect. Trust is the solution. A faith that can grapple with the complications of reality is the solution. A faith that is comfortable with the progress of science is the solution. For some people certainty is the prerequisite for faith. But as one scholar wrote, the opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty.
33 comments:
David killed Goliath of Gath when he was young and Saul was alive (1 Sam). Years later when Saul was dead and David old Elhanan killed another Goliath, the Gittite (2 Sam). Before or after this killing, after Saul was dead, Elhanan also slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath (1 Chron).
"The point is, he knew the scripture exhaustively and made no attempt to put it all right. He did not settle the issue of whether it was David or Elhanan who was the slayer of Goliath. Or what to do about the Sabbath in Antarctica. Or many other fine points that fuel modern day controversy over the Torah."
Well, maybe Jeff Reed can clear up that sabbath issue for us.
" Relying on apologetics solely to shore up Biblical interpretation is relying on cunning. At some point cunning will prove inadequate – and the history of Tyre will not be what you think it is, for instance."
"People who insist on the certainty of scripture, who do not factor in human curation, march in procession towards debacle. Walled redoubts of denial do not protect. Trust is the solution. A faith that can grapple with the complications of reality is the solution. A faith that is comfortable with the progress of science is the solution. For some people certainty is the prerequisite for faith. But as one scholar wrote, the opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty."
=========================
It doesn't get any more clearly explained than this. Well done and thank you.
I would say this is, by far, the best explanation and reasons for not having the compulsive need to justify every discrepancy, mistake and contradiction in scripture with apologetics designed to make one not see what is clearly seen in the texts and tales.
Of course, the standard response is that there are no discrepancies, mistakes or contradictions in scripture, but that view is simply the result of the lack of critical thinking skills and the misunderstanding that the Bible must all be one harmonious story, which it is not.
The problems with the David and Goliath tale as well as the relationship of Saul to David are probably not even known to the average COG member or minister. If they were, as noted, appropriate apologetics can be offered, as unconvincing as they might be.
I like the approach of my close friend Mike Feazell who, while no longer a believer in any sense he once was just as myself, notes that when confronted with contradictory statements in scripture, all one actually can do is go with the one that is the most positive, helpful, kind, compassionate and real and forget about whatever ones were less than any of this. You can't do both and shouldn't, so go with the ones that work for you. That's realism when trying to figure out what the scriptures would have one do or be, if scriptural guidance is important to you.
Faith is a strong confidence of belief in that for which there is no evidence. After all, Hebrews 11:1 pretty much says, "Now faith is what we hope (the substance of things hoped for) is true, based on no actual evidence (of thing not seen) that it is true."
At any rate, very well done and one of the best posts ever on the topic here on Banned.
I thought this was a good general overview concerning textual criticism:
From: Why believe the Bible
Jim Denison, PhD, denisonforum.org/, January 4, 2011:
Unintentional errors
Much of the work of textual critics consists in identifying the presence of scribal, editorial, and/or translator errors. Scholars have identified four kinds of unintentional errors as most common, and watch for them with special interest.
Some mistakes arose from faulty eyesight—failing to distinguish between similar letters and similar errors. For instance, the Hebrew “y” (yodh) looks much like the “w’ (waw). And the Greek capital letters for epsilon (made as a rounded E) and theta (an oval with a line in the middle) are very similar when handwritten.
“Haplography” occurred when a scribe wrote once what should have been written twice (like “occurence” for “occurrence” or “maping” for “mapping” in English). “Dittography” occurred when the scribe wrote twice what should be written only once. And “metathesis” resulted from changing the proper order of letters or words.
A second kind of error resulted from faulty hearing, when the scribe made copies from dictation or even pronounced the words to himself as he wrote them. “Homophony” occurred when the scribe wrote a wrong word which sounded the same as the correct term (like “two” for “to” in English).
A third category of scribal mistakes was errors of the mind. The scribe held a phrase in his memory as he copied it, and sometimes transposed or missed letters or words as a result. Mistakes of this type fall into several categories:
“Metatheis,” when the scribe changed the proper order of letters or words.
“Fusion,” combining the last letter of a word with the first letter of the following word, or combining two words into one.
“Fission,” the improper separation of one word into two.
“Homoeoteleuton,” when a phrase ends in a certain way, a scribe can miss that which follows if the concluding phrase also ends in the same way. When the scribe looked from the original to the copy he was writing, then looked back to the original, his eyes could easily fall on the latter ending and miss that which came in between.
“Homoearkton,” the loss of intervening words if two phrases begin in the same way.
A fourth kind of unintentional error resulted from mistakes in scribal judgment. Words and notes made in the margin of the older copy were sometimes incorporated into the text of the new manuscript. Scribes would occasionally copy across two columns of a text, rather than working down the passage a column at a time.
Intentional changes
At times, scribes tried to “clean up” the text before them by making deliberate changes to the manuscript at hand. If a scribe felt the style of his text could be improved, he would sometimes make grammatical “corrections.” Parallel texts in the gospels were often harmonized to agree completely with each other. New Testament quotes of Old Testament texts were “improved” to conform to the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament).
“Conflation” was a common problem. When a scribe worked from two or more manuscripts and found variant readings, he would sometimes include both in his copy. And some scribes added doctrinal statements according to their convictions. For instance, one amended Luke’s statement, “It seemed good also to me to write an orderly account” (Lk. 1:3) to read, “It seemed good also to me and to the Holy Spirit” (following Acts 15:28, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”).
I love reading posts like this. Thank you NO2HWA for posting this one, and other controversial posts!
During my second thru third year at AC I used to have some very enlightening private discussions with Dr. Hoeh. One of those discussions was about this very subject, so-called contradictions in the Bible. Dennis has posted some of his concepts on this site, with seeming complicated “errors “ but all having simple answers that he didn’t appear to know.
Anyway, Dr. Hoeh made a few points about them from his experience with having to answer questions from members, students, and at times, the general public.
From what I remember these are a few of his points:
1. Dr. Hoeh loved reading and researching these questions. He advised that I learn to do the same.
2. When the solution pops out at some point in the research it always brings about joy and more confidence in the Bible than ever.
3. Atheists, agnostics, critics and others are easily drawn to these puzzles. They are always looking for the loophole, to avoid obedience to scripture, as in hoping the loose brick will bring the book down.
4. These inserts into the Bible are there purposely to create an interesting situation. Because of their nature, they draw the skeptical mind over and over again. And, in general they have to read lots of the Bible text in order to find them on their own. Thus, one of the Father’s “secret weapons “ that is, once they repeatedly read the text, they can’t deny the rest of what it says, and cannot unread it. Oops!
5. The answers do not normally come instantly. Sometimes it can take days, weeks, months or a year or more. Often, when least expected, the answer will seemingly pop into the mind. Once it does no one can dissuade the person that the Bible is unreliable.
6. Once you get the answer don’t give it out easily. Give a hint or so, but encourage the questioner to find the answer on their own. Self discovery is much more powerful and persuasive than being pablum fed the answers.
7. Always keep encouraging the skeptics to keep looking for more contradictions and errors.
Well, that’s some of what I remember. As the years went by I found answers to many of these “problems” on my own. One was the 14 generations question found in the Messiah’s genealogy. The answer turned out to be so simple it really blew me away at how cleverly done it was to confuse so many people over the centuries.
Lots of times they are written to cause one to naturally look in the wrong direction to find the answer.
So, have fun, keep posting articles like this, and don’t read with blinders on!
Me
1 Chron. 20:5 might indicate that 2 Sam. 21:19 is missing the word "the brother of". David killed Goliath, Elhanan later killed Goliath's brother. 2 Sam. puts the passage after the death of Saul, so Elhanan killed "Goliath" when David was king.
When to observe the Sabbath in Antartica is a non-issue since the law was given to one group of people and they lived in Israel, not at the south pole.
When to observe the Sabbath in Antartica is a non-issue since the law was given to one group of people and they lived in Israel, not at the south pole.
Good pisting. I’ll have to read about Elhanan further. Quick question were the Philiatines from Gath called Gittites? Certainly, a later Goliath is reasonable and likely as many a child might be named after the great champion Goliath.
But, even if not, I found Scout’s post inspiring as belief is the foundation of a Christian.
"Mike Feazell..no longer a believer"
funny what shakes out when the money stops..
Anonymous 11:23
You almost understand what I am saying. Yes, one must engage in due diligence in researching controversial texts - in alignment with Herman Hoeh's intent. But at the end of the day, there are inconsistencies that will not yield to Hoeh's methods. Because they were introduced by flawed scribes. Because more than one account existed. And other issues. These are not phantoms that Bart Ehrman and Dennis Diehl composed out of whole cloth. These issues with scripture aren't rhetorical tricks. They exist and you can read them.
The account of David has more issues than just the discrepancies over who killed Goliath. The story arc is is not consistent. Further, there are serious logistical problems with how the Exodus happened in scripture. There is no evidence of a global flood. The list could go on. Yet, I believe that the Bible is God's message to us. And part of that message is the message itself. And that message about the message is intended to help us to recognize what is important and what is not. Jesus did not give a cunning answer to what kind of fish swallowed Jonah. But he did use the poetic imagery of Jonah - the principle of what happened to Jonah. And when he used the imagery, there were no perfectionist disciples around to raise a hand and ask the question "Well, err, just what kind of fish was that exactly?" I believe Jonah is a parable and torturing the scripture to explain the fish totally misses the point. Letting your faith hinge on apologetic rationalizations misses the point. The message must be understood holistically and at the level of principle.
Herman Hoeh, though he recanted in his last days, was one of the principal architects of Armstrongism. Citing him and his methodology is hardly an endorsement for good exegesis. His methodology seemed to have done him little good. He spent years swimming in a reservoir of legendary and fantastical data and errant theology. The interesting story is the miracle of how he abandoned all of that and became a Christian - a big story nowhere written.
Scout
"Herman Hoeh, though he recanted in his last days"
Did he give us our money back?
Scout, as usual you miss the point in the effort to save face. Dr. Hoeh is and was an excellent source to quote. He was a great example of what to do when doubts arose. For one example, he would keep both teachings when a change in doctrine was presented until one was finally settled with the lacking proof being found. He did this in his personal practice, but did not require it of others.
Yep, Hoeh is a terrific example of how to handle atheists, critics and especially pseudo over “educated “ fake theologians. Hoeh had his problems but he had the right loving attitude for others taught in the Bible that is not found on this site.
Here is a good paraphrase to consider: They shall know you are my disciples because you actually do love one another, you don’t fake it by pretend love while you try to destroy one another.
Pretended correction and criticism without real love for others is useless and destructive. So, let’s up the love for others here and lessen the anger, accusations, exaggerations, and hate toward others as exemplified here. Won’t hurt to try. Yes sir, all that Christian love should be on display here on steroids. Then the “heart felt” diatribes and jabs might have a real impact. Otherwise it’s just a negative gossip fest.
I'm familiar with the discrepancies between 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, although we used to call the divergent verses on the same event the "doublets". There are actually additional differing verses describing the same battles, but different numbers of casualties.
Several observations: The first that comes to mind is that not everyone has an eidetic memory. This means that if one is reading the entire Bible in sequence, just the verses and not the footnotes of, say, a study Bible, most people will miss the differences in numbers of casualties for the same event. Goliath? Not so easy to gloss over, because all of us had been taught in Sunday School, prior to our Armstrong experience, that David Slew Goliath.
Secondly, the way scriptures were presented to us in sermons, church literature, and the Correspondence Course was similar to the methodology of axiomatic geometry, in an effort to "prove" certain principles or doctrines. If one wanted to read the Bible from cover to cover in sequence for a better sense of context, that was something done as an individual in one's private daily Bible Study. There were classes at AC in which books of the Bible were read from start to finish, however, that is not the same as reading the entire Bible from cover to cover. In any case, most church members would never have encountered these "doublets" on their own.
The problem for the die-hard Armstrongite with Scout's excellent dissertation is that HWA taught that the Bible is God's perfect word for mankind, written by Godly men, under deep inspiration by the Holy Spirit. I believe the occasional mistranslation was noted by the ministry, The only one I recall was the reference to "Easter" in the KJV., Acts 12:1-4, however there may have been a few others which were acknowledged. This means that those who were taught that the Bible was perfect, with every word inspired, would be faced with a cognitive dissonance over these doublets or hermeneutics unresolvable by Armstrongism. One might compartmentalize, shoving this to the back of one's mind, but it would surface once again each time additional problems of Armstrongism occurred.
I like Scout's "curators". Others have called these "editors", and there are passages in our Bibles of today which obliquely imply editing. Phrases such as, "And it still stands today." Moses is usually cited as one editor, as were the scribes and priests during the time of Israel's captivity, Ezra the scribe, and possibly scribes and priests during the time of the Hasmonean kings in the intertestamental period as they prepared the texts used in the second temple. This is all information which was not generally noted or presented by our "spiritual guides" in the WCG. I am sure that Herman Hoeh, Anthony Buzzard, and Ernest Martin were familiar with it, but all three managed to muzzle themselves until their consciences would no longer allow it.
I believe that God has made it completely impossible for humans to successfully exist in an Old Covenant state of mind during New Covenant times. Whether one ponders the ancient lunar sabbaths, the knowledge science has given us, the abject failure of the prophecies those who attempt Old Covenant observance, the lack of a Temple and priesthood, or the loss of context and cultural nuances experienced as Hebrew lay fallow as a dead language, it all adds up to one thing. The Old Testament was time and date stamped, and is best remembered as simply leading to Messiah. HWA's "hook" is not even possible.
Anonymous 9:36,
"Scout, as usual you miss the point in the effort to save face."
I really don't know what you are talking about. This seems to be an empty attempt to be snarky. Form and no content.
"...especially pseudo over “educated “ fake theologians."
No doubt a snarky reference to me.
"Yes sir, all that Christian love should be on display here on steroids."
After putting your snarkiness on open display, that you would make this statement is laughable. Do you think people don't notice this? How dumb do you think the readers are?
Herman Hoeh kept Pentecost on both Sunday and Monday. He did what was expedient to survive in a cult. That hardly amounts to some magnificent ethic. The best public act that Hoeh ever did was to renounce Armstrongism by leaving it. For this, along with renouncing the Compendium of World History, he should receive our respect.
Scout
Solomon was right when he said it was better to dwell in the corner of a housetop than with a brawling and contentious woman. Selah.
Although he posted as Anonymous, 9:36 could only be one person. I'm sure we all know who he is. And, he doesn't remember one of the principles about which Mr. Armstrong was quite correct: "When you point the finger of accusation at someone else, you've got three fingers pointing back at yourself." (ie the accuser is usually the doer). Might he actually be pseudo himself?
20:23 posted:
“ Anonymous said...
Although he posted as Anonymous, 9:36 could only be one person. I'm sure we all know who he is. And, he doesn't remember one of the principles about which Mr. Armstrong was quite correct: "When you point the finger of accusation at someone else, you've got three fingers pointing back at yourself." (ie the accuser is usually the doer). Might he actually be pseudo himself?”
Well, you may know who he is… I don’t.
However, you are correct, when the critics here point the finger at the past and present groups they disagree with, they all have three fingers pointing back at themselves. Maybe they should take some time to consider their own past and present public image.
6:58 wrote, "David killed Goliath of Gath when he was young and Saul was alive (1 Sam). Years later when Saul was dead and David old Elhanan killed another Goliath, the Gittite (2 Sam). Before or after this killing, after Saul was dead, Elhanan also slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath (1 Chron)."
This is a plausible interpretation. But it is an interpretation and one of many. The Jewish Study Bible, p. 644, states the following:
"Probably, however, the killing of Goliath was initially attributed to Elhanan (perhaps, the hero mentioned in 23:24), but later the more famous David was credited with it."
The JSB also points out that some believe that Elhanan and David were the same person. The fact is that the Biblical record is inconclusive. Occam's Razor would lead us to believe that it is simpily a contradiction. It has the apperance of such a glaring contradiction involving Israel's greatest hero that one wonders why the scribes did not correct it but let it ride for about two centuries. My analysis is one of many but the point is that the Biblical record is unclear and this lack of clarity should not precipitate a crisis of faith in any Christian. We need to read at a different level. If Jesus could undergo Kenosis then why cannot the written word undergo Kenosis also by being subjected to humanly managed curation by ancient scribes?
Scout
"....when the critics here point the finger at the past and present groups they disagree with, they all have three fingers pointing back at themselves."
Yeah. And it's worth it. Hopefully our finger pointing will prevent others from having all or part or their lives ruined. Me? Sometimes I'm pointing my finger at them, and in other cases, I'm flipping them off! It's for the greater good. When we point out the problems Dave Pack is inflicting upon his members, it seems like those 3 fingers get muted, just like a good lead guitar player mutes strings with his palm at the bridge when they make sounds just from the action as he lifts his fingers.
The Rabbis botched the narrative and had to go into cover-up mode. Surely we have seen this before. Doesn't anybody pay attention to politicians? They all do that, some worse than others.
Goliath was resurrected so he could be killed a second time. This represents the second death.
He was killed once by David who is a type of Jesus. That represents the spiritual death. The other guy who killed him the first time was carnal. That represents physical death.
Ya gotta understand death.
9:41 response is so typical of the critics here. Always some weak excuse of why it is ok to pick on others, but never ever is anything wrong with us. I like your comment on how you “flip them off“……..
Wow, a real loving Christian response. Thanks for setting such a fine example for us.
There is a better way of handling Pack and others. One is quit giving them so much attention since you are actually advertising for them. Even politicians are eager for any attention they can get, good or bad. Builds name attention.
Again, I appreciate your fine example.
Scout wrote:
“ I really don't know what you are talking about. This seems to be an empty attempt to be snarky. Form and no content.
"...especially pseudo over “educated “ fake theologians."
No doubt a snarky reference to me.”
Well, you claimed it. It was just an overall comment along with critics, etc. All as a group, not any individual. But, I can see why you claimed it as a personal description. Thanks for your acknowledgement of how you also seem to view yourself. Speaks volumes.
Oh, Herman Hoeh was a great example of “how to hide in plain sight “ so he could still help and encourage those caught in a difficult situation. And, how the Messiah could hide in the middle of a crowd and not be harmed. Lots to learn from Scripture by the carnal masses, and even the converted.l
Anonymous 9:08 wrote, "Well, you claimed it"
That is an illogical and sophomoric response. Very clumsy. It speaks volumes but not about me. About you. So now you are referring, from your lofty height on Mt. Armstrong, to the readers as "the carnal masses."
You are obviously a fan of Herman Hoeh's past behavior. I am not. He did differentiate himself fom the other cult heretics in Pasadena by trying to tidy up a bit before he left. To his credit.
Scout
My assertion here about the Bible may be regarded by some as a one-off. I know my belief that Biblical Literalism and clever Apologetics are the route to the ultimate disintegration of faith will be disconcerting to both Armstrongists and many Christian Evangelicals. (If you are on that route, remember that Dennis Diehl tried to warn you of untidy road construction ahead.) But the view of the Bible I expressed here has history among conservative theologians. A few quotes:
A.A. Hodge, a Princeton Theologian, a 19th century Reformed theologian, speaking of men who were agents in the authoring of scripture:
“Each drew from the stores of his own original information, from the contributions of other men and from all other natural sources. Each sought knowledge, like all other authors, from the use of his own natural faculties of thought and feeling, intuition and of logical inference, of memory and imagination, and of religious experience. Each gave evidence of his own special limitations of knowledge and mental power, and of his own personal defects as well as of his powers…They (the Scriptures) were written in human languages, whose words, inflections, constructions and idioms bear everywhere indelible traces of human error.”
B.B. Warfield, an early 20th century Reformed Theologian at Princeton Seminary:
“[The] whole of Scripture is the product of the divine activities which enter it, not by superseding the activities of the human authors, but by working confluently with them, so that the Scriptures are the joint product of divine and human activities...”
And C.S. Lewis wrote about the fact that many of the authors of the New Testament were not adept in the Greek Language:
“Does this shock us? It ought not to, except as the Incarnation itself ought to shock us. The same divine humility which decreed that God should become a baby in a peasant-woman’s breast, and later an arrested field-preacher in the hands of the Roman police, decreed also that He should be preached in a vulgar, prosaic and unliterary language. If you can stomach the one, you can stomach the other.”
Scout
Reference: Enns, Peter. “Preliminary Observations on an Incarnational Model of Scripture.”
Scout, you belittle men like H. Armstrong, H. Hoeh, then turn on around and quote other MEN as though they are the source of all biblical understanding.
The difference between your diatribes and those you criticize is they believe more that the Bible explains itself with “words simple to understand”.
On the other hand you seem to believe that the Bible needs to be understood with flashy long difficult words, made up by man, to support their questionable interpretation. What the Bible writers call vain philosophy.
I prefer to avoid vain philosophy which sounds so good and substantial but is hot air blowing in the wind.
Sorry if that may offend you, but since we can’t sit down and talk face to face I have to say how you appear to be.
Oh, I don’t think you have a clue about H. Hoeh. Your comments about him to NOT equate to the man I knew over a span of a decade as counselor and friend.
Thanks for participating, I’ve always enjoyed a friendly tussle.
What??!! God cannot submit the truth in writing without human error?? But He can. Sure, bad and mis.. translations are allowed but I think it is always possible after study, and prayer, to arrive at the truth. Only if you want it.
I have found John Walton’s Lost World books very helpful in a better way to approach the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) as well as Bible Project podcasts. The Bible is a literary work that was compiled and edited by many people over centuries. With hyperlinks in the Hebrew back to foundational texts that invites us to think through the original stories and compare/contrast the later stories.
Walton has recently published a new book and an interview with him starts at 56:18 (from Holy Post) on how we misread the Bible. I particularly like how he separates that the Bible is inerrant in what it affirms to be true, but is not necessarily dictating out video descriptions of actual events. Our task is to tease out what it is affirming as a community instead of leaving it up to individual interpretations.
https://www.holypost.com/post/578-how-america-got-mean-why-we-misread-the-bible-with-john-walton
I was not aware of this in-congruency with David/Elhanan however I believe it’s deliberate to make us stop and discuss the similarities/differences of both texts to inform each story.
9:19
I have talked with Hoeh in person and corresponded with him several times - one time fairly extensively. This was both before he became a Christian and afterward. I have read most of his Compendium and many articles written by him for the various Armstrongist periodicals. I have a particular reason why I do not trust his view of church related events. I will not go into it here. But I know whereof I speak.
"What the Bible writers call vain philosophy."
That's your view not theirs. The Waterhousian view - that all you have to do is read it - has resulted in endless loads of heresy.
Scout
9:19 wrote, "Sorry if that may offend you"
You intended to offend me. You might look up the term passive-aggressive sometime.
Scout
Scout wrote:
You intended to offend me. You might look up the term passive-aggressive sometime.
.
No, I didn’t. But, that is your stick in order to try and make yourself look innocent. When you begin to post some positive comments then you might have a leg to stand on.
Scout also wrote: I have talked with Hoeh in person and corresponded with him several times - one time fairly extensively.
Looks good, but that does not compare with a decade of access, including writing for him at his request. Discussing private matters. Also, eating with him at his home, and talking about many things. Did you know he kept raw butter on the table so it was always soft and easy to apply and tasted really delicious.
Students were not allowed to have cars. My Dad bought me a new one and told me to drive it back to AC after summer vacation. Dr. Hoeh helped me with how to handle the situation, and no problem.
After our marriage ceremony Dr. Hoeh hid a bottle of champagne in the car for my wife and me on our honeymoon. I guess you had that close a relationship with him, right?
I stand by my statement that you don’t know much about him. Seems mostly you had long distance contact with him. And, read the material with a biased mind.
He was not the man you describe. However, I met many grumps at AC who always complained. They thought their personal problems would disappear by going to AC and joining the church. They complained because they couldn’t follow real spiritual teachings. So their excuses were obviously, HWA, etal, the professors, ministers, deacons, members, etc. But they just couldn’t get control of themselves.
So, real involved experiences override formal distance contact easily.
Thankfully the Father will ultimately clear up all the fog for all of us.
Stay healthy, happy and terrific.
Anonymous 10:47 wrote, “What??!! God cannot submit the truth in writing without human error?? But He can. Sure, bad and mis.. translations are allowed but I think it is always possible after study, and prayer, to arrive at the truth. Only if you want it.”
Yes, God can do anything. He is absolute. And we need to view the Bible in this context. If he could have easily delivered a perfect document where no human curation were involved, then why didn’t he? Why did he use the process that he did? The inevitable conclusion is that the process he used to communicate and maintain the message is a part of the message itself. And that process can be described as, “God let his children tell the story.”
When Jesus came to the earth, he could have set up a publishing operation and assigned his disciples to overhaul the Law and the Prophets – removing all discrepancies and adding notations for difficult scriptures. But he did not do this. And we need to ask ourselves why.
You think it is always possible after study, and prayer, to arrive at the truth. I would agree that the Holy Spirit is necessary for us to understand and apply scripture. And maybe sometimes that understanding is that a particular account in scripture has acquired errors in preservation and transmission. But we can look beyond the bewildering details to the broad principles. Yet, it takes a certain kind of character to do that. Many people have trouble with the idea that something remains unexplained and that they must simply trust God. For them, certainty precedes a kind of fragile transietn belief or "faith." If some uncertainty in the scripture emerges, their faith undergoes crisis and may never be the same again. Such people dodge the bullet sometimes so as not to run into that crisis. They capitulate their ability to reason and understand to someone else. We must all be en guard about this.
Scout
Post a Comment