Richard K. Min The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA

Mobile Tracking Using Forward Link in Cellular NetworksCircular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox SBL IM2014 Vienna Austria. July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox
Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting 2014
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
July 6-10, 2014
7/10/2014 Thursday 8:30-11:15 AM Room: HS 24 - Hauptgebäude
Richard K. Min
Instituto Teologico Bauptista Pablo (ITBP), Chiapas, Mexico
email: [email protected]
http://biblicalparadox.wordpress.com
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox SBL IM2014 Vienna Austria. July 6-10, 2014
Acknowledgements
Gopal Gupta for his support and guidance in my study and research at University of Texas at Dallas.
Moses (HyunGu) Kim and yungGuen Lee at Paul Theological Seminary (ITBP) and Ko-Mex Mission in Chiapas, Mexico, Sam Underwood at FBC Farmers Branch, Jung-O Kim at Dallas Eastern Presbyterian Church, In-Gyun Oh at Hanuri Church, Richard Crawford at FBC Richardson, Katy Barnwell at Wycliffe Bible Translators & SIL, David (Hosik) Kim at Korean Bible University, Paul Miller at Gramcord, and SeJune Hong at IBM, for research opportunity, support, and encouragement.
E. Earle Ellis for New Testament studies, and Carl F. H. Henry for my study in John, Theology, and Christian Philosophy.
Cathy Drewry for Editorial Support.
Mi Min (my wife) for her support and encouragement, and being my first and best audience.
Note on Terminology
Cycle ) or κκλος in Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Circularity, Vicious Circle, Circular Reasoning
(Infinite) Loop
Reciprocal Interiority (Malatesta 1978)
Co-induction, Coinduction, Coinductive Logic
*
Part 1
Introduction and Background
Circular Rhetoric and Paradox in Biblical Studies
In the past,
The major work on circular rhetoric is viewed as Semitic influence in repetitive or tautological expression (often treated as useless or nonsensical) [Howard “Semitisms in NT”, 1929]
Only serious and major scholarly works on Circular Rhetoric: the reciprocal indwelling relationships in 1 John (be-in and dwell-in) by Malatesta (1978), followed by Brown (1982).
Paradox: mostly done in Philosophy or Theology except one recent and noteworthy work on Mark by Santos (1995).
self-denial discipleship (Mark 8:34),
servant-leadership (Mark 9:35).
*
Circular Rhetoric and Paradox
(Barber’s Paradox)
A barber is “one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves."
** Does the barber shave himself? Yes? or No?
(Russell 1918 Lecture: The Philosophy of Logical Atomism)
cf. “Physician, Heal yourself!” (Luke 4:24)
The Liar Paradox (Titus 1:12)
Even one of their own prophet has said, “Cretans are always liars.”
“Κρτες, ε ψευδες, κακ θηρα, γαστρες ργα”
[Epimenides [circa 600BC] as identified by Clement of Alexandria]
Epimenides (circa 600 BC). The "lie" of the Cretans is that Zeus was mortal; Epimenides considered Zeu s immortal. "Cretans, always liars," with the same theological intent as Epimenides, also appears in the Hymn to Zeus of Callimachus . The fourth line is quoted (with a reference to one of "your own poets") in Acts of the Apostles , chapter 17, verse 28 .
Epimenides of Knossos ( Crete ) ( Greek : πιμενδης) was a semi- mythical 7th or 6th century BC Greek seer and philosopher - poet . While tending his father's sheep, he is said to have fallen asleep for fifty-seven years in a Cretan cave sacred to Zeus , after which he reportedly awoke with the gift of prophecy ( Diogenes Laërtius i. 109–115). Plutarch writes that Epimenides purified Athens after the pollution brought by the Alcmeonidae , and that the seer's expertise in sacrifices and reform of funeral practices were of great help to Solon in his reform of the Athenian state. The only reward he would accept was a branch of the sacred olive, and a promise of perpetual friendship between Athens and Cnossus (Plutarch, Life of Solon, 12; Aristotle , Ath. Pol . 1).
Athenaeus also mentions him, in connection with the self-sacrifice of the erastes and eromenos pair of Cratinus and Aristodemus, who were believed to have given their lives in order to purify Athens. Even in antiquity there were those who held the story to be mere fiction (The Deipnosophists, XIII. 78–79). Diogenes Laërtius preserves a number of spurious letters between Epimenides and Solon in his Lives of the Philosophers. Epimenides was also said to have prophesied at Sparta on military matters.
He died in Crete at an advanced age; according to his countrymen, who afterwards honoured him as a god, he lived nearly three hundred years. According to another story, he was taken prisoner in a war between the Spartans and Cnossians, and put to death by his captors, because he refused to prophesy favourably for them. Pausanias reports that when Epimenides died, his skin was found to be covered with tattooed writing. This was considered odd, because the Greeks reserved tattooing for slaves . Some modern scholars have seen this as evidence that Epimenides was heir to the shamanic religions of Central Asia , because tattooing is often associated with shamanic initiation . The skin of Epimenides was preserved at the courts of the ephores in Sparta , conceivably as a good-luck charm. Epimenides is also reckoned with Melampus and Onomacritus as one of the founders of Orphism .
Epimenides' Cretica (Κρητικ) is quoted twice in the New Testament . Its only source is a 9th-century Syriac commentary by Isho'dad of Merv on the Acts of the Apostles , discovered, edited and translated (into Greek) by Prof. J. Rendel Harris in a series of articles in the Expositor (Oct. 1906, 305–17; Apr. 1907, 332–37 ; Apr. 1912, 348–353).
In the poem, Minos addresses Zeus thus:
Rendal Harris' hypothetical Greek text:Τμβον τεκτναντο σθεν, κδιστε μγιστε,
Κρτες, ε ψευδες, κακ θηρα, γαστρες ργα.
λλ σ γ ο θνσκεις, στηκας γρ ζος αε,
ν γρ σο ζμεν κα κινμεθ δ κα σμν.
Translation:They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,
Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
*
Two Traditional Approaches
Philosophy to provide a sound epistemological foundation
Classical Logic (by Tarski): to avoid circularity (paradox), to treat circular reasoning as invalid, and to have a hierarchy of language to prevent the circularity
Logical Atomism 2 (Wittgenstein):
Philosophy to point out linguistic mistake: “metaphysics and ethics were literally nonsensical”
Deconstructionism (Postmodernism) (by Derrida): to treat the languages as incapable and helpless.
“Is Zombie alive or dead?”
Reconstruct one’s own personal & subjective meaning of the text (for there is no such a thing as objective “truth” expressed in a text).
Circularity in Everyday Life
Social interactions are cyclical:
Many natural phenomena are cyclical
Cyclical movement of the earth, four seasons, day & night, etc.
Self-reference as a proof-method
Scripture explains by Scripture (Augustine)
Numerous examples (Barwise & Moss 1996)
Any 7x24 system or process (once up and running, meant to run forever): web server, mobile server, operating systems, life-support system, GPS & navigation system, etc..
Two Familiar Examples outside of the Bible
“Cogito ergo sum” by René Descartes
“I think, therefore I am.” in Specimina Philosophiae (1644)
This proposition became a fundamental element of Western Philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge. (Wiki)
“Scripturae ex Scripturae explicanda est.”
Augustine (354 – 430): When we wish to examine passages made obscure by metaphorical expressions, the result should be something which is beyond dispute or which, if not beyond dispute, can be settled by finding and deploying corroboratory evidence from within scripture itself”
(On Christian Doctrine III.86-86, p. 87).
Luther: In this manner Scripture is its own light. It is a fine thing when Scripture explains itself. (Franz August Otto Pieper, Church Dogmatics, vol. 3:362)
5 Solae: Sola Scriptura, Fide, Gratia; Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria
Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 1 by Dr. Francis Pieper. pp. 359-367
http://heartoftn.net/users/gary27/Exegesis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
*
Breakthrough by Kripke (1975) and
Emerging new development with Circular Logic
Kripke (1975): “Outline of a Theory of Truth”, and
“Kripke-Kleene 3-valued Semantics for Logic Programs” by Fitting (1985), and various computational approaches, applications & implementations, including:
Coinductive Logic Programming (co-LP) by Simon et al (2006),
Coinductive Logic Programming with Negation as Failure by Min et al (2009), and its applciation to the study of Biblical Paradox by Min and Gupta (SBL IM 2010), Min (SBL IM 2011), Min (SBL IM 2012), Min (SBL IM2013), and Min (SBL AM2013), Min (SBL IM2014), Min (ETS 2014).
http://www.utdallas.edu/~rkm010300
http://biblicalparadox.wordpress.com
Part 2
Circular Rhetoric and Paradoxes
Example 1. Exodus 3:14
Example 2 - John 14:10
*
Example 3 – Titus 1:12
The Liar Paradox
*
Example 4 – Three Paradoxes in Matthew 22:15-46
(1) Matthew 22:15-22
(2) Matthew 22:23-33
Marriage vs Resurrection
(3) Matthew 22:41-46
David called Christ, “My Lord” in Psalm 110:1
Example 4.
Christ - Whose son is he? Son of David.
Paradox of Lord-Servant (Father-Son) Relationship
What is Human vs Divine in crash!
A New Look at Matthew 22:15-46
Four Questions (and Answers?) and their classification
Midrash in Yelammedenu form (Question-Answer)
W. G. Braude. Pesikta Rabbati 2 vols. (1968).
J. W. Bowker, ‘Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form’ NTS14 (1967-1968) 96-111.
E. Earle Ellis, ‘Midrashic Features in the Speeches of Acts’ (1970) 303-312
All dealing with non-conventional, non-classical logic
generating paradox, confusion, conflict, contradiction, dilemma
defying conventional logic or contemporary common-sense
dealing with circular, modal, or nonmonotonic logic
All difficult problems (and solutions) in Sitz Im Leben
at least “very easy” to verify once a solution is given
A problem of verification (cf. Luke 5:23; Daniel 2)
*
A New Look at Matthew 22:15-46
All dealing with Biblical Law & Legal Reasoning
thus the problems of Biblical Legal Reasoning (Halakoth)
Two Laws in Conflict
Matthew 22:15-22. Tax Law
the law of God vs the law of Caesar (this World)
Who is my Master (Matthew 6:24)? Whose servant am I?
Matthew 22:23-33. Marriage (Family) Law
the law of Marriage (Mosaic Law) in this age vs. in the age to come
the old law to be perished (time-expired) vs. the new law in resurrection
Old Law vs. New Law (to repeal the old law)
Matthew 22:34-40. Order in the Laws (legal precedence)
Hierarchy of the Laws, legal authority, highest law, legal precedence and superseding law, to avoid circular paradox but provide a linear order
Matthew 22:41-46. Law of Inheritance (for Title of Lordship)
the law governing the Son of God in flesh vs. divine (Psalm 110:1)
Two-Stage Coming of the Kingdom of God
“Already” and “Not Yet” in Tension (Luke 17:20-30)
Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte) by Oscar Cullmann
A Classical Example in Contemporary NT Studies
*
The Testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:15, 30)
The similar circular rhetoric of “already” & “not yet” in the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:15,30)
The passage is composed of three simple and distinctive prepositional phrases, in either temporal or spatial (in rank or order) meaning, to generate an interesting enigma and paradox in exegesis.
πσω μου ρχμενος
(2) μπροσθν μου γγονεν
(3) τι πρτς μου ν
πσω μου ρχμενος μπροσθν μου γγονεν, τι πρτς μου ν
*
Jesus’ “I am” Sayings in John
John 8:12-20 as two proof methods
Parallel with Exodus 3:14-15 (in the light of John 8:12-20)
John 5:31 in the light of John 8:12-20
John 10:1-21 as a template for “I am” sayings (παροιμα)
A Unifying Interpretive Framework of “I am” Sayings of Jesus with John 8:12-20 and John 10:1-21
Partial Interpretation (and Modal solutions)
Unfolding Story
Blended with Real and Symbolic (Figurative) materials
With or Without an opening (parabolic) story with well-known OT story, a case of “Sitz Im Leben”, Miracle, etc.
Proem (Midrash) in continuous, progressive, dynamic narrative-frame
Two Proof Methods in John 8:12-20
“I am” the light of the world
(1) Circular Logic (Self-Testimony) vs. (2) Law - Two Witnesses
John 8:12-20 (NIV)
12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said,
“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
13 The Pharisees challenged him,
“Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”
(1) John 8:12. one of “I am” sayings in John. εγω ειμι το φως του κοσμου
(2) John 8:13. Objection and Accusation by the Pharisees
It is “Self-witness” (Circular Reasoning).
Two Proof Methods in John 8:12-20
John 8:12-20 (NIV)
14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going.
But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid.
18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”
John 8:12 “I am …” as Self-Testimony – Circular or Coinductive Reasoning
John 8:17 Testimony of two men according to the Law – Inductive Reasoning
Thus all metaphorical “I am” sayings of Jesus in John are essentially Circular.
Parallel: John 8:12-19 & Exodus 3:14-15
(Exodus 3:14 ASV – Coinductive Reasoning & Self-Referencing God)
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
I AM hath sent me unto you.
(Exodus 3:15 ASV – Inductive Reasoning – God in reference with His people)
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
Also noted in Matthew 22:23-33: God is God of the living.
“I am” as Interpretive Key
A few distinctive features in John 10:7-18 for 10:1-5
In contrast to the presentation and interpretation of the parables used in the synoptic gospels, for example, Matthew 13:3-9 (Presentation) & 13:18-23 (Complete Interpretation).
(1) Partial Interpretation, and Modal Aspect (2 solutions)
(2) Story Unfolding & Expanding,
(3) Dynamic and Blended
Story is Unfolding
Adding new materials to the Story
Blended (or mixed) with what is Symbolic (Figurative) and what is Real materials, in a continuous, progressive, and dynamic narrative-frame.
“I am” as Interpretive Key
This pattern (“I am” as Interpretive Key with “Partial-Blended-Unfolding”) is clearly observed in John 6.
Jesus claims himself as the bread of the life (John 6:35) using “I am” as the key to unlock the story of “the true bread of God” from the heaven, who gives life to the world (John 6:31-34).
Jesus uses the partial interpretation of the parable to his audience, thus inviting to eat his flesh (where it is meant to receive his word as explained in John 6:63).
Blending what is real and what is symbolic.
Eat the manna from the heaven
Take my word (teaching) or Believe in me
Take me as the living bread or Take me as the living water
Eat my fresh or Drink my blood
(4) Not “User-Friendly” Teaching, Interpretation, Rhetoric, Sermon, Story-telling or Retelling, and Discourse or Narrative Style
Difficult problem in 1 John 3:9 & 5:18 vs1:8-10
Sin-state of Christian in need of Confession for the forgiveness of God versus
Sinless-state (impeccable state) of Christian
How to Harmonize these conflicting passages?
Or is it even possible?
1 John 3:9 one “born of God” in circular logic
Πς γεγεννημνος κ το θεο μαρταν ο ποιε,
τι σπρμα ατο ν ατ μνει, κα ο δναται μαρτνειν,
τι κ το θεο γεγννηται.
Does sin have a different meaning (aspect) to one “before” and “after” being born of God?
What sin can “one born of God” never commit?
Sin of not believing in Jesus Christ the Son of God our Propitiation
Hebrews: A Masterpiece of Circular Rhetoric and Logic of Paradox in Action
Paradox 1. The Son of God vs Melchizedek (Psalm 110:1, 4; Hebrews 7:3, 15). [Paradox of “Already and Not Yet”]
Paradox 2. The oath of God, sworn by himself (Hebrews 6:13; 7:21). [Paradox of Self-Testimony]
Paradox 3. According to the Scripture, as it is written, the Son of God has come to fulfill what had been written about himself (Psalm 40:6–8; Hebrews 10:5–9). [Paradox of Self-Reference: Son of God in Person and in Scripture referring to Himself in Scripture]
Paradox 4. The Son of God as the High-Priest of God, offering Himself as the sacrifice (Hebrews 10:8–10). [Paradox of Mutual Reference]
Hebrews 7:3,15 - Melchizedek
1 Οτος γρ Μελχισδεκ, βασιλες Σαλμ, ερες το θεο το ψστου, … 3 πτωρ μτωρ γενεαλγητος,
μτε ρχν μερν μτε ζως τλος χων, φωμοιωμνος δ τ υ το θεο,
μνει ερες ες τ διηνεκς. …
15 κα περισστερον τι κατδηλν στιν, ε κατ τν μοιτητα Μελχισδεκ νσταται ερες τερος,
15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest.
(Hebrews 6:13)
For when God made a promise to Abraham,
because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself.
Paul: “In Christ” and the Law
“In Christ” (& alike in 165 times)
The most important formula in Pauline
In Christ, In God, In Holy Spirit, … (circular rhetoric)
Christ in me.
Paul and the Law
E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); id., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
Rabbinic view vs. NT Christian view on the Mosaic
Law & Grace of God
The Mosaic Law vs. The Law of Christ
Galatians 5:3-4 vs 5:6 Two aspects on Circumcision ?
Romans 7-8: Are Two Laws in Conflict?
Or Is there an Inconsistency in Paul’s Legal Reasoning?
Part 3
A New Critical Method for Circular Rhetoric and Logic of Paradox
A New Critical Method
To make sense
Otherwise, to treat it meaningless or invalid, or to treat as if it is not there
Use and Application of Circular Logic in the Bible: so many and so predominant
And each case/its presence simply cannot to be ignored or silenced.
Once understood correctly, it truly makes sense
Matthew 22:15-46, John 8:12-20 with Exodus 3:14-15
A Help to construct a coherent, consistent, and unifying framework in exegesis and its application (no need for “liberal theology”, or “deconstruction”, “narrative theology” or theology and preaching as “story-telling”)
Circular Rhetoric & Logic of Paradox
Circular Rhetoric and Logic of Paradox
No More Ignorance, Confusion, or Contradiction
No More Speculation … No Nonsense
Simple Method: Easy to Learn & Apply
Purely Biblical Basis (Link to Biblical Theology)
Sound Theoretical & Methodological Foundation
Additional Benefits
Biblical Rhetoric and Logic of Trinity (One God in Three Person)
Biblical Rhetoric and Logic of Hypostatic Nature of Jesus Christ
Biblical Rhetoric and Logic of Legal Reasoning (OT vs NT)
Afterword by Solomon
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.
(Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NIV)

Date post:	31-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	allegra-obrien
View:	15 times
Download:	0 times

Richard K. Min The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA

Documents