Brian
Member (Idle past 4977 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: 10-22-2002
|
Kummel
Hi CA, I looked over the pages referenced by Hayes, and I cannot see where his conclusions come from. Here are the pages anyway, perhaps they will make more sense to you. However, Kummel's book Page 20: Chapter 2: The Period of the Reformation. As we have seen, humanism was unable to call a genuinely historical criticism of the New Testament into being within the framework of the Catholic Church. However, in connection with the theology of the Reformation three fundamental observations were made, though to be sure their revolutionary consequences for New Testament research did not at first become apparent. In the first place we draw attention to the basic recognition of the Reformers that it is not the Church and not the pope who can determine the sense of Holy Scripture, but that Holy Scripture is the only and final source of revelation for Christians; and that consequently Scripture is to be explained by Scripture itself. During the altercation with Cajetan and Eck (1518-19) at the Diet of Augsburg and at the debate at Leipzig Martin Luther, in the course of disputing the authority of the councils, reached the conviction that only Scripture could impart the truth of God. Then, in a form that was to have worldwide historical consequences, he articulated this insight at the end of his address in defense of himself to the Diet of Worms (1521), and repeated it still later in his confession published in 1538 (the so-called Smalcald Articles.)10 The Holy Scriptures must needs be clearer, easier of interpretation, and more certain than any other scriptures, for all teachers prove their statements by them, as by clearer and more stable writings, and wish their own writings to be established and explained by them. But no one can ever prove a dark saying by one that is still darker: therefore, necessity compels us to run to the Bible with all the writings of the doctors, and thence to get our verdict and judgment upon them; for Scripture alone is the true over-lord and master of all writings and doctrines on earth. If not, what are the Scriptures good for? Let us reject them and be satisfied with die human books and teachers. Here I answered: "Since then your serene majesty and your lordships seeks a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, neither horned nor toothed: Unless I am convinced by die testimony of the Scriptures or by dear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they (page 21)have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. "I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, Amen." A deed or word of the Holy Fathers cannot be made an article of faith. Otherwise whatever of food, clothes, houses, etc. they had would have to become an article of faith, as has happened with their relics. It is the Word of God that is to determine an article of faithnothing else, not even an angel. And about the same time (1520) for Huldreich Zwingli the Word of God had become the only vehicleand a vehicle effective in its own rightof the renewal of world and Church.11 Now if we have found that the inward man is as stated, and that it delights in the law of God because it is created in the divine image in order to have fellowship with hint, it follows necessarily that there is no law or word which will give greater delight to the inward man than the Word of God. For according to the saying of Isaiah 28, "the bed is shorter than that die adulterer can stretch himself on it, and die covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it." That is, God is die bridegroom and husband of the soul. He wills that it should remain inviolate, for he cannot allow any oilier to be lovedthat is, to be as highly esteemed and preciousas he is. Nor does he will that the soul should seek comfort anywhere but in him, or allow any other word to minister comfort but his Word. For in the same way it is the husband's will that the wife should cleave only to him, lavishing all her care upon him and seeking no other comfort but that which he can give. When the children of Israel were at their worst, in the days of Sodom and Nineveh, and the whole world in the days of Noah, [God] sent prophets and his Word to them, and those who changed their ways survived, while those who despised his Word were miserably exterminated or imprisoned- In our time do we not see the world in all lands and stations so evil that we shudder at the sight? But, since the Word of God now appears in the midst of all the evil, do we not see dial this is the act of God, who does not will that his creatures, whom he had purchased and paid for with his own blood, should be lost miserably and en masse? In this way the Bible, which had hitherto been tacitly understood as an expression of the teaching of the Church, was suddenly set apart and the religious interest so directed to its proper understanding that biblical exegesis came to occupy the center of attention as the most important task of. all theological activity. And, since the Bible could no longer have its assured meaning imposed on it from without, it had to be explained wholly from within, and even as early as 1519 Luther had given this recognition its classic formulation, viz., that the Bible must be its own interpreter.12 Furthermore, since we believe that the Holy Catholic Church has the same Spirit of faith that it received at its beginning, why should it not be permitted (page 22) today to study the Holy Scripture, either alone or above all else, as the early church was permitted so to do? For early Christians had not read Augustine or Thomas. Or tell me, if you can, what judge can decide the question, whether the statements o the church fathers have contradicted themselves. As a matter of fact, a judgment must be pronounced by making Scripture the judge, something that is impossible if we do not accord primacy to Scripture in all questions that are referred to the church fathers. This means that [Scripture] itself by itself is the most unequivocal, the most accessible [facillima], the most comprehensible authority, itself its own interpreter [sui ipsius interpret], attesting, judging, and illuminating all things, as Psalm 119 [vs. 130] affirms: "The explanation," or to render it more exactly in accordance with the Hebrew, "the opening or the door of thy words gives light and imparts understanding to the simple." Here the Spirit clearly grants illumination and teaches that insight is given only by the Word of God. as by a door or opening, or (to use a current phrase) as the first stage with which one must begin on the way to light and insight. Further: "The beginning and the head of thy words is truth" [Ps. 119:160]. You see that here also truth is imparted only to the "head" of the words of God; that is, if in the first instance you learn the words of God and use them as the point of departure in pronouncing judgment on all words. This insight, fundamental in similar fashion to the thinking of all the Reformers, when consistently pursued, has to lead to a strictly historical exegesis of the Bible, and that particularly so since by Luther it was bound up with a second, no less significant, insight. From the medieval tradition Luther had been familiar with the method by which the early church had found in every biblical text a fourfold scriptural sense (literal, allegorical, moral, anagogicalhaving a spiritual meaning with reference to last things) 13, but as early as 1517 he had completely broken with it. More important, however, is the fact that Luther also more and more abandoned an allegorical explanation of Scripture and emphasized that the Word of God has but one meaning, a simple, unequivocal one, even though occasionally he still resorted to allegorical interpretations for devotional ends. And in the very placing of value on the single, literal sense of the text, Luther stood opposed to the humanistic tradition; this insight was a discovery peculiarly his own; he defended his practice both against his papist opponents and against Erasmus; and at the end of his life he expressly reiterated- the hermeneutical principle.14 The Holy Spirit is the plainest writer and speaker in heaven and earth, and therefore His words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest, sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural, sense. That the things indicated by the simple sense of His simple words should signify something further and different, and therefore one thing should always signify another, is more than a question of words or of language. For the same is true of all other things outside of the Scriptures, since all God's works and creatures are living signs and words of God, as St. Augustine and all (he teachers declare. But we (page 23)are not on that account to say that the Scriptures or the Word of God have more than one meaning. Now, is this matter of the free will to remain forever uncertain and undecided, as one that cannot be proven or refuted by any simple text, hut only, with fabricated inferences and figures of speech, to be introduced, belabored, and driven hither and yon, like a reed in the wind, by people who are completely at odds with one another? Consequently we may justly maintain that we are not to introduce any extraneous inferences or metaphorical, figurative sayings into any text of Scripture, unless the particulars of the words compel us to do so; unless the mind refuses to accept the simple words, e.g., if the text runs counter to other important passages of Scripture and its natural thrust and meaning, which the alphabetical symbol or the grammar and natural usage, as God created language among men, brings to utterance. For if anyone at all were to have power to depart from the pure, simple words and to make inferences and figures of speech wherever he wished, what else then would Scripture be but a reed that the wind tosses and blows about, or an unstable Proteus and Vertumnus which now would be this and then would be something else. If anyone at all were to have power to do this, no one could reach any certain conclusions about, or prove anything of, any article of faith which could not in this fashion (what I am saying is a tropos or biblical word that is not easy to comprehend) be contested ....
I have paid especial attention to the fact that all heresies and error in Scripture have not arisen out of the simple words of Scripture (although the Sophists have spread the byword throughout the whole world dial the Bible is a heretical book), but that all error arises out of paying no regard to the plain words and, by fabricated inferences and figures of speech, concocting arbitrary interpretations in one's own brain. The Doctor said: When I was young I was learned and, strange to say, before I became a theologian I busied myself with allegory, tropology, and analogy and did all sorts of silly juggler's tricks; if anyone had such a skill today he would consider it an amazing gift. I know that sort of thing is utter nonsense, and now I have given it up. This is the method I now employ, the final and best one: I convey the literal sense of Scripture, for in the literal sense there is life, comfort, strength, learning, and art. Other interpretations, however appealing, are the work of fools. These two observations of Luther's inevitably pointed the way to a scientific approach that would with full seriousness deal with the New Testament in its historical peculiarity. But still more significant than this basic revaluation of the position of the Bible within the whole field of theologya re-evaluation Luther shared with all the Reformerswas Luther's own discovery, which must have been made in course of translating the New Testament at Wartburg and which he articulated in the prefaces to this translation when it was published in September, 1522. From the writings of Eusebius and Jerome, Luther had learned, as had the humanists and Cajetan, that the early church had disputed over the admission of some writings into the canon because there was uncertainty as to their authorship by an "apostle." This questioning, which by itself (page 24)can lead only to a literary judgment about the author and in this way gave occasion for doubting the canonical status of nonapostolic writings, Luther, with a hitherto unknown power of discernment, now sharpened into a tool of theological criticism. He pointed out that the statements of the Epistle to the Hebrews that a second repentance is impossible were incompatible with the demand for repentance in the Gospels and in Paul's letters; he noted that the teaching about justification in the Epistle of James is wholly incompatible with Pauline teaching (an observation he made again at a much later date in a Table Talk); he noted, further, the unquestionable facts that the Epistle of James lacks any real coherence and reflects an essentially Jewish framework of thought; and, on the basis of the prosaic nature of the rest of the New Testament, he criticized the fantastic character of the Revelation to John and the fact that it wholly ignores the central Christian message.15 Hitherto we have had the really certain chief books of the New Testament. But the four following [Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation] had, in ancient times, a different reputation. In the first place, that this Epistle [to the Hebrews] is not St. Paul's, nor any other apostle's is proved by the fact that it says, in chapter 2 [vs. 3], that this doctrine has Come to us and remains among us through those who themselves heard it from the Lord. Thus it is clear that he speaks of the apostles as a disciple to whom this doctrine has come from the apostles, perhaps long after them. For St. Paul, in Galatians 1 [vs. 1], testifies mightily that he has his Gospel from no man, neither through men, but from God Himself.
Again, there is a hard knot to untie in die fact that in chapters 6 [vss. 4-6] and 10 [vs. 26] it flatly denies and forbids sinners repentance after baptism, and in chapter 12 [vs. 17], it says that Esau sought repentance and did not find it. This seems, as it stands, to be against all the Gospels and St Paul's Epistles; and although one might make a gloss on it, the words are so clear that I do not know whether that would be sufficient. My opinion is that it is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it does not deal with any one subject in an orderly way.. ..
Who wrote it is not known, and will not be known for a while; it makes no difference. We should be satisfied with the doctrine that be bases so constantly on the Scriptures, showing a right fine grasp upon the reading of the Scriptures and the proper way to deal with them.
Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude
Though this Epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men and lays great stress upon God's law. But to state my own opinion about it, though without injury to anyone, I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle. My reasons are as follows.
First: Flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, it ascribes righteousness to works, and says that Abraham was justified by his works, in that he offered his son Isaac [Jas. 2:21], though St. Paul, on the contrary, teaches, in Romans 4 [vss. 2-3], that Abraham was justified without works, by faith alone, before he offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15 [vs. 6]. (page 25) Now although this Epistle might be helped and a gloss be found for this works-righteousness, it cannot be defended against applying to works the saying of Moses of Genesis 15, which speaks only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul shows in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, leads to the conclusion that it is not the work of any apostle.
Second: Its purpose is to teach Christians, and in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the Resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. [The author] names Christ several times, but he teaches nothing about Him, and only speaks of common faith in God. For it is the duty of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and Resurrection and work of Christ, and thus lay the foundation of faith, as He himself says, in John 15 [vs. 27], "Ye shall bear witness of me." All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach Christ and deal with Him. That is the true test, by which to judge all books, when we see whether they deal with Christ or not, since all the Scriptures show us Christ (Romans 3 [vss. 21 ff.]) and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (I Corinthians 2 [vs. 2]). What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or Paul taught it; again, what preaches Christ would be apostolic, even, though Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod did it.
But this James does nothing more than impel [the reader] to the law and its works; and he mixes the two up in such disorderly fashion that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took some sayings of the apostles' disciples and threw them thus on paper; or perhaps they were written down by someone else from his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty" [1:25], though St. Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death and of sin (Galatians 3 [vss. 23-24]; Romans 7 [vss. 11, 23]). Moreover, in chapter 5, he quotes the sayings of St. Peter, "Love covereth the multitude of sins" (I Peter 4 [vs. 3] ... and of St. Paul (Galatians 5 [vs. 17]), "The Spirit lusteth against hatred [against the flesh]"; and yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod, in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that he came long after Sts. Peter and Paul. In a word, he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words, and rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture, and would accomplish by insisting on the Law what the apostles accomplish by inciting men to love. Therefore, I cannot put him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him. [One man alone is no man in worldly things. How, then, should this single individual avail against Paul and all the other Scriptures?] Concerning die Epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy from St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the aposdes as a disciple coming long after them [vs. 17], and quotes sayings and stories that are found nowhere in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient Fathers to throw this Epistle out of the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover, Jude, the Apostle, did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I praise the book, it is an epistle dial need not be counted among the chief books, which are to lay the foundation of faith. Preface to the Revelation of Saint John About this book of die Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment: I say (page 26) what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in dear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul and Christ in the Gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and His deeds without figures and visions but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and I can in nothing detect that it was provided by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly,more than any other o the sacred books do, though they are much more important,and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will deal likewise with him, etc. [22:18-19]. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old, though St Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is, at many points, too mild. Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle above all else is bound, to do, as He says in Acts 1 [vs. 8], "Ye shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely. Many sweat hard at reconciling James with Paul, as, indeed, does Philip [Melanchthon] in the Apology, but unsuccessfully. "Faith justifies" stands in flat contradiction to "Faith does not justify." If anyone can harmonize these sayings, I'll put my doctor's cap on him and let him call me a fool. From the beginning, Luther took these judgments so very seriously that, in contrast to the traditional arrangement, he put the four writings he had subjected to theological and historical attack (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) at the end of the New Testament (where they have remained in all editions of the Luther Bible) and did not enumerate them in the table of contents. And though in later editions he deleted or toned down the sharpest judgments on James and Revelation, he never altered this order of these four writings or listed them in his table of all the books of the Old and New Testaments.16 In this way attention was drawn for the first time to the fact that within the New Testament there are material differences between the books of instructiondifferences that cannot be reconciledand as a consequence it became possible to observe the multiplicity of the ways of thinking and the historical genesis of the world of thought of the New Testament. But all this stood in marked tension with the presupposition of the Reformation that Scripture, explained by and of itself, is the sole and unambiguous medium of revelation. Consequently, Luther's personal discover)' was virtually stillborn and was quickly forgotten again. But even the basic views of Holy Scripture that were common to all... That's the text as it appears on the page of Kummel's book, any spelling or grammar mistakes will be mine of course! I dont see anything to substantiate what Hayes is saying, the only other thing I can think of doing is having a look through some of Hayes' books to see where this idea came from, I can do this on Friday afternoon as I am back at uni then.
It occurs to me that the sentence "had earlier been stressed in Judaism over against a Christocentric reading of the Old Testament" might easily refer to no more that an understandable Judaic disdain for those who would twist the Torah into Christian prophecy. Yes, perhaps he is referring to Old testament verses that have been interpreted in such a way as to claim that Christ is in the passage as opposed to the literal meaning. Perhaps something like Isaiah 7:14 (I am guessing here) where the 'virgin birth' prophecy is literally referring to a child born very soon after the prophecy was given, as a sign for Ahaz and not what Christianity has twisted it into. I will have a look at some of Hayes' books on Friday and get back to you unless you can make sense of the above. Brian. PS. Percy, if this post is too long I can delete most of it in a day or two after CA has finished with it.
|
™ Version 4.2