Klineans: A valid Grammatico-Historical approach?

Semper Fidelis · #1 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Hi Rich,

Some might find 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 Grant/Suzerain Treaty approach "works" to explain 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. Even in our theological language we use daily metaphors: imputation (accounting), acquittal (court room) and so forth. Why is it okay for us to do it but it's not possible for Scripture to do it? Of course Scripture does it all the time.

I hasten 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 gather, 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 appropriate a widely known and used term 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 access to the information to which we have access now, I think they would have 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 approach 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 express their hermeneutical breakthrough, their repudiation of the medieval and Roman Catholic "old law-new law" hermeneutic (which Rome and the FV still confess) 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 live") 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 want to bog down the other thread with this discussion. My intent here is not to be pugilistic but to try to interact on this. I do appreciate your extended explanation but want to press this a bit more. I don't want this thread to turn into a thread that trashes the Klinean approach but I would like 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:

Quote:

I hasten 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 gather, 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 fall down:

1. He was doing so under inspiration, Moses doesn't use the Royal Grant/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 work 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 form 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 back into Logos philsophy and import 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 look 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 think that last 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 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

victorbravo · #2 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 07:34 PM

Rich, very good post that raises the same sort of concerns I have.

BTW, for people who don't know what "ANE" stands for (like me about 10 minutes ago), I think it means languages of the ancient near east.

R. Scott Clark · #3 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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.

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 have 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 refute the liberal allegations about the date and authorship of Deut.

Other scholars have also pointed out the correlation between the Royal Grant 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 reflect on that fact. We should draw the lines where ever they exist. Maybe I'm missing something? Is there something bad that might happen? What would it mean 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 know about the setting the text, the better we understand it.

Quote:

You said:

Quote:

I hasten 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 gather, 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.

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.

Quote:

Thus there are several issues of discontinuity that make your analogy fall down:

1. He was doing so under inspiration, Moses doesn't use the Royal Grant/Suzerain Treaty "lingo". Klineans do.

"Klineans" (whoever they are!) didn't invent the term "Royal Grant!" 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 line 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 Spirit 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 Spirit to see connections between the OT and the ANE.

Quote:

2. Is it clear to you that Moses borrowed from the Hittites or is it the other way arond? If the former then the analogy would only work 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.

Yes, I understand that Moses borrowed existing forms. Think of it this way. Did Moses invent Hebrew? Did Daniel invent Aramaic? Did Paul invent Greek? No. They all used existing language forms. We haven't believed in "Holy Spirit" languages for a very long time. 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.

Quote:

3. If the latter, what if the Hittites dorked up the treaty form 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?

I'm afraid I don't understand this question. 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.

Quote:

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 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 look 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 term and Moses appropriated an existing civil-religious form or better, God himself appropriated covenant forms to express law and gospel. Neither of these things was innocent. That fact did not prevent God from appropriating and using them.

Quote:

In fact, I think that last 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 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?

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 course, as I pointed out before, Justin Martyr did exactly what you suggest 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 question, or is it really just the idea that Moses appropriated ANE treaty forms that troubles?

rsc

Semper Fidelis · #4 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Is there something else going on here, behind the question, or is it really just the idea that Moses appropriated ANE treaty forms that troubles?

rsc

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 express my concern well.

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 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 think what I was trying to get at with the treaty is that the simililarity in form 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 back and interview Moses as to why or if he borrowed certain forms or maybe even "cleaned them up" that it could lead 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 Grant/Suzerain Treaty.
2. The OT Covenants seem to be cast 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 operate with hidden agendas.

R. Scott Clark · #5 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 09:52 PM

Just a follow 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 reflect the ANE pattern 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.
K. A. Kitchen and Minimalism By Charles David Isbell

It would be better 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 mind. 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 play 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, read in context, it's not about the atonement at all, but about providence and divine goodness. Paul "borrows" an expression from the statue and uses it to make a point. He does the same thing in Titus 1:12 when he quotes a pagan poet to make a point: 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 look at the very form 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 look at the Apocalypse and correlate 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 divine truth to people 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

R. Scott Clark · #6 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 09:54 PM

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 form that therefore the canon doesn't determine the meaning of the form as it is used in Scripture. The point 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 piece of literature optimally outside of its original context, whether it is a creed or a theology or Scripture itself.

rsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Is there something else going on here, behind the question, or is it really just the idea that Moses appropriated ANE treaty forms that troubles?

rsc

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 express my concern well.

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 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 think what I was trying to get at with the treaty is that the simililarity in form 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 back and interview Moses as to why or if he borrowed certain forms or maybe even "cleaned them up" that it could lead 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 Grant/Suzerain Treaty.
2. The OT Covenants seem to be cast 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 operate with hidden agendas.

Semper Fidelis · #7 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 10:04 PM

Roger all. Thanks.

Contra_Mundum · #8 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 10:26 PM

There's this thread:
Peter Gentry on the image of God
where I gave a somewhat hesitant critique of the view that Man is the imago dei at least in part 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 message about their sovereignty.

Hesitant, because I thought I might be extrapolating a bit on a snippet of a larger article.

Still, I think 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 take goes like this: God sets up original covenants with men. This fixes an ideological element in men's minds, and perhaps even something like a "form". Men develop the idea or form recreatively. The prevalent "form" of the ANE Hittites is found providentially to be a very suitable paradigm for later institutions of divine covenant, e.g. with Abraham.

On the subject of Logos, again I agree that John probably chose a term 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 legitimate to borrow or appropriate the tools of the world for communicating truth, provided we prioritize revelation, and bound the discussion properly. Paul did something similar probably many places, but notably (in Scripture) in Athens.

R. Scott Clark · #9 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 11:16 PM

Hi Rich,

I didn't mean 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 time and I find that in answering one question I'm actually getting involved in another without realizing it.

rsc

Semper Fidelis · #10 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 11:21 PM

Bruce,

I think that's sort of how I both view it and am concerned about it. I don't doubt 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 well.

I think there's a misunderstanding that I'm trying to rend any cultural relevance from the text of Scripture. The question, 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 Grant and so we can learn 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.

Semper Fidelis · #11 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Hi Rich,

I didn't mean 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 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 think I was drawing you into a controversy for no reason. 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 book 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 stock placed in the Hittites to help us understand the Covenants...."

It just surprised me and I thank you that you're willing to interact on it.

armourbearer · #12 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 11:40 PM

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 jump 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 pick 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 "land grant."

Kline didn't prove an early date for Deuteronomy. The treaty form dates as far back to Abraham and as far forward as the first century. The most one could determine is that the treaty form is early enough to make an early date for Deuteronomy credible, if in fact Deut. can be shown to possess the same literary features.

Jim_Johnston · #13 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

4. One other instance comes to mind. 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 play on an motto etched into the base of statue in Ephesus: To Julius Caesar, Benefactor of All Men."

Scott, do you have the reference? Is this a paper I can find at WSC's site?

Thanks.

Semper Fidelis · #14 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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 jump 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 pick 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 "land grant."

Kline didn't prove an early date for Deuteronomy. The treaty form dates as far back to Abraham and as far forward as the first century. The most one could determine is that the treaty form is early enough to make an early date for Deuteronomy credible, if in fact Deut. can be shown to possess the same literary features.

Thanks to you and Bruce for cleaning up what my concern is. I don't always express myself clearly.

sotzo · #15 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 04:40 AM

Excellent and helpful stuff in this thread. 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?