A Protestant Learns About Greek Orthodoxy (Video)

[FireDragon76]

I don't think Orthodox are nearly immersed as RCs. Just look at the difference in the NAB and the Orthodox study bibles, for example. The OSB is solid and mostly sticks to Christological commentary. The NAB commentary sound like the Oxford Annotated or something (like mainline Protestants who lost the faith and question everything).

My point isn't that Orthodox are necessarily identical to mainline Protestants, but Orthodox priests in general in the US are not intellectually naive, and they receive good educations about the origins of various biblical texts. Whereas many fundamentalist Protestant churches simply do not educate pastors about such matters, or they communicate misleading propaganda or dubious explanations to try to put a fig leaf over traditional authorship.

 

[straykat]

My point isn't that Orthodox are necessarily identical to mainline Protestants, but Orthodox priests in general in the US are not intellectually naive, and they receive good educations about the origins of various biblical texts. Whereas many fundamentalist Protestant churches simply do not educate pastors about such matters, or they communicate misleading propaganda or dubious explanations to try to put a fig leaf over traditional authorship.

I find it sad personally. And you don't need to be fundamentalist to fall in the other direction. Some of the theories higher criticism rely on shaky evidence even by scientific standards (or no evidence at all). For example, almost all mainline/higher critical materials will date the Exodus in the 1200s BC (instead of the date given in the book of Kings itself.. which would be the 1440s BC or so). But this 1200s date is based on two of the silliest things: One, they think the city of "Ramses" in Exodus was the actual name, but that's just an anachronism. It's like if English writers said the Romans built the city of "York" (technically they did, but it was called Eboracum in Roman days). Same goes for Ramses. But by this reasoning, they also assume the Pharaoh of the Exodus was also Ramses (and looked like Yul Brenner, I guess).

They build further on this chronology by relying on Champollion, who originally proposed that the Pharaoh "Shishak" that raided Jerusalem in the book of Kings is the Pharaoh Shoshenq (simply because it sounds similar).

But the kicker is that we have the Merneptah Stele, which is already dated in the 1200s BC.. and it already lists Israel as an established people in the land, along with other major powers. How do you have the Exodus in the 1200s, but suddenly make them noteworthy enough to be listed in Egyptian records alongside other Canaanite powers?

I don't mean to derail, but this is just one issue, and it has huge implications on how the whole Torah is viewed in higher criticism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Wow, that's one of my favorite epistles. What was their issue?

a lot of the same reasons the East wasn't keen on Revelation. it's deep, mystical, and is easy to misinterpret.

 

[FireDragon76]

I find it sad personally. And you don't need to be fundamentalist to fall in the other direction. Some of the theories higher criticism rely on shaky evidence even by scientific standards (or no evidence at all). For example, almost all mainline/higher critical materials will date the Exodus in the 1200s BC (instead of the date given in the book of Kings itself.. which would be the 1440s BC or so). But this 1200s date is based on two of the silliest things: One, they think the city of "Ramses" in Exodus was the actual name, but that's just an anachronism. It's like if English writers said the Romans built the city of "York" (technically they did, but it was called Eboracum in Roman days). Same goes for Ramses. But by this reasoning, they also assume the Pharaoh of the Exodus was also Ramses (and looked like Yul Brenner, I guess).

They build further on this chronology by relying on Champollion, who originally proposed that the Pharaoh "Shishak" that raided Jerusalem in the book of Kings is the Pharaoh Shoshenq (simply because it sounds similar).

But the kicker is that we have the Merneptah Stele, which is already dated in the 1200s BC.. and it already lists Israel as an established people in the land, along with other major powers. How do you have the Exodus in the 1200s, but suddenly make them noteworthy enough to be listed in Egyptian records alongside other Canaanite powers?

I don't mean to derail, but this is just one issue, and it has huge implications on how the whole Torah is viewed in higher criticism.

Those are all points worthy of debate, but higher criticism does not rise or fall based on the dating of the Exodus. The evidence for documentary sources in the Torah is quite substantial and is based on the study of the text itself.

 

[straykat]

Those are all points worthy of debate, but higher criticism does not rise or fall based on the dating of the Exodus. The evidence for documentary sources in the Torah is quite substantial and is based on the study of the text itself.

I don't doubt there are sources (I just pointed out how mentioning Ramses in Exodus is an anachronism.. obviously it's an edit. Ramses is also mentioned at the end of Genesis too). But the details are a mystery. Building an extensive theory on it is baseless, and says more about the theorist than it does the scripture. For example, all of the scholars of Julius Wellhausen's time (the main theorist that we get the JEPD theory from) were already products of the Enlightenment and took a rationalistic view on religion to begin with. Some were still Christians, but they already showed their bias by "demystifying" their outlook and practice of religion. Wellhausen in particular held a negative view of the "P" (Priestly) source and surmised that "J" and "E" were an earlier, "purer" form of the Israelite religion and the "P" source reflected a rigid and ritualistic corruption. On what grounds is any of this based on? On their own biases, that's what.

The source theory applied to the Gospels is even worse. All of the dating is conveniently after AD 70 - because the scholars who propose this know very well that Jesus was prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and it's temple.. but since it's a "prophecy", and "prophecy isn't really possible", it must not be what he really said.. and is just some anachronism on the part of a later writer to make Jesus more important than the scholar thinks he was.

But this kind of "crap" scholarship started with the Enlightenment as well. All the way back to the time of Thomas Jefferson, for example, whose demystified version of the Gospels is well known.

All of these people ultimately have an agenda to demystify and then ultimately propose that Jesus was just some wise teacher and a political revolutionary of some sort. The whole "Historical Jesus" stuff hinges on this nonsense.

He's not a Revolutionary. He's the KING OF KINGS. The world killed him for the sake of a revolutionary (Barabbas), and Lucifer himself is the original revolutionary.

edit: Sorry for the derail again. And I'm not mad at you. Hope it didn't come off like that. I'm just getting emotional to show just how much this attacks the very heart of our faith (especially when it's aimed at the gospels). It's bigger than it seems and no small thing.

 

[TheLostCoin]

I don't doubt there are sources (I just pointed out how mentioning Ramses in Exodus is an anachronism.. obviously it's an edit. Ramses is also mentioned at the end of Genesis too). But the details are a mystery. Building an extensive theory on it is baseless, and says more about the theorist than it does the scripture. For example, all of the scholars of Julius Wellhausen's time (the main theorist that we get the JEPD theory from) were already products of the Enlightenment and took a rationalistic view on religion to begin with. Some were still Christians, but they already showed their bias by "demystifying" their outlook and practice of religion. Wellhausen in particular held a negative view of the "P" (Priestly) source and surmised that "J" and "E" were an earlier, "purer" form of the Israelite religion and the "P" source reflected a rigid and ritualistic corruption. On what grounds is any of this based on? On their own biases, that's what.

The source theory applied to the Gospels is even worse. All of the dating is conveniently after AD 70 - because the scholars who propose this know very well that Jesus was prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and it's temple.. but since it's a "prophecy", and "prophecy isn't really possible", it must not be what he really said.. and is just some anachronism on the part of a later writer to make Jesus more important than the scholar thinks he was.

But this kind of "crap" scholarship started with the Enlightenment as well. All the way back to the time of Thomas Jefferson, for example, whose demystified version of the Gospels is well known.

All of these people ultimately have an agenda to demystify and then ultimately propose that Jesus was just some wise teacher and a political revolutionary of some sort. The whole "Historical Jesus" stuff hinges on this nonsense.

He's not a Revolutionary. He's the KING OF KINGS. The world killed him for the sake of a revolutionary (Barabbas), and Lucifer himself is the original revolutionary.

edit: Sorry for the derail again. And I'm not mad at you. Hope it didn't come off like that. I'm just getting emotional to show just how much this attacks the very heart of our faith (especially when it's aimed at the gospels). It's bigger than it seems and no small thing.

I took a class on Prophecy in the Old Testament at college, and there is a similar idea with the Book of Daniel - my professor claimed that there are many scholars who believe Daniel is anachronistic for predicting Alexander the Great, even though, according to him, there should be clear Greek linguistic influence on the Book itself if it really did come at a later date after Alexander the Great - but there’s almost none, the exception being a Greek instrument that’s named.

 

[FireDragon76]

Just the fact that we are conversant in these theories, and can debate their merits, is proof enough of my point. The average evangelical Protestant is either unaware of them altogether, or resorts to the crudest propaganda. But if you go to a seminary like St. Vladimir's, you will be exposed to the best scholarship on the Old Testament, most of which is peer reviewed in actual academic journals. The same is not true at the typical evangelical seminary or bible college, where the curriculum is carefully curated by a narrow religious orthodoxy designed to dismiss critical thought, and the education is simply not taken seriously outside the narrow confines of its institutions, as a result.

 

[FireDragon76]

a lot of the same reasons the East wasn't keen on Revelation. it's deep, mystical, and is easy to misinterpret.

If I recall correctly, Hebrews seems to imply a person can forfeit salvation beyond redemption through sin and apostasy. This was an error taught in some corners of the early Christian movement (as exemplified by the Shepherd of Hermas having to refute it). Some Christians such as Montanists held to this position.

A more moderate reading of the passage of course brackets it within the wider NT teaching on grace.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If I recall correctly, Hebrews seems to imply a person can forfeit salvation beyond redemption through sin and apostasy. This was an error taught in some corners of the early Christian movement (as exemplified by the Shepherd of Hermas having to refute it). Some Christians such as Montanists held to this position.

A more moderate reading of the passage of course brackets it within the wider NT teaching on grace.

not sure off the top of my head, but any heretic/schismatic can wrongly infer from an odd part of Scripture. sorta like how the Arians ran with Christ growing in spirit in Luke's Gospel.

 

[straykat]

Just the fact that we are conversant in these theories, and can debate their merits, is proof enough of my point. The average evangelical Protestant is either unaware of them altogether, or resorts to the crudest propaganda. But if you go to a seminary like St. Vladimir's, you will be exposed to the best scholarship on the Old Testament, most of which is peer reviewed in actual academic journals. The same is not true at the typical evangelical seminary or bible college, where the curriculum is carefully curated by a narrow religious orthodoxy designed to dismiss critical thought, and the education is simply not taken seriously outside the narrow confines of its institutions, as a result.

Well, I agree that we shouldn't drop critical thought. And I don't think we should avoid them (obviously, since I know of them myself). But there is a respectable way they can be challenged from those of us who uphold tradition (albeit in a more diplomatic way than I did above in some spots). I would invite my Catholic friends to do the same. The well known "Divino Affante Spiritu" which first permitted the exploration of higher critical methods in the RCC was partly meant for polemic purposes. From my understanding, Catholics were meant to take from it what was useful, but not fall into the same level of skepticism. I urge the same there as Orthodox.. if only because I care about the people under their pastoral care. It's a disservice to the average Christian who expects simple guidance, and then their teachers plant seeds of doubt and make them question the Word of God. Better if you had left them alone in the wilderness to fend for themselves than with a pastor who purposely leads them into dry places to starve.

 

[straykat]

Since we're talking about Protestants and Orthodoxy in a wider sense now, I might as well share this link as well. It's an interview from Fr. Josiah Trenham, whose book "Rock and Sand" is about what he sees as the differences even to conservative Evangelicals with Orthodoxy (he was actually once a student of the likes of RC Sproul and John Gerstner, I think):

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, I agree that we shouldn't drop critical thought. And I don't think we should avoid them (obviously, since I know of them myself). But there is a respectable way they can be challenged from those of us who uphold tradition (albeit in a more diplomatic way than I did above in some spots). I would invite my Catholic friends to do the same. The well known "Divino Affante Spiritu" which first permitted the exploration of higher critical methods in the RCC was partly meant for polemic purposes. From my understanding, Catholics were meant to take from it what was useful, but not fall into the same level of skepticism. I urge the same there as Orthodox.. if only because I care about the people under their pastoral care. It's a disservice to the average Christian who expects simple guidance, and then their teachers plant seeds of doubt and make them question the Word of God. Better if you had left them alone in the wilderness to fend for themselves than with a pastor who purposely leads them into dry places to starve.

I do agree there are excesses possible with the use of higher criticism but I think the origins of the ethos of the Protestant mainline is more complicated than simply pinning it all on Julius Wellhausen, and much of it is due to the cultural differences between east and west, and the divergent histories of our respective religions.

It is possible to accept hypotheses such as the JEDP and be a committed serious, Christian. But what that religion looks like, of course, is going to be different in its implications. However, I do think there's a viscious and dismissive attitude in our culture- and I do not wish to pin this on the Orthodox Church necessarily, of mainline Christians as unspiritual people with shallow religion and I really think that's a misunderstanding of the mainline Protestant tradition, especially brought on by the American tendency to value passion and sincerity over reason and the intellectual life of the mind.

 

[FireDragon76]

Since we're talking about Protestants and Orthodoxy in a wider sense now, I might as well share this link as well. It's an interview from Fr. Josiah Trenham, whose book "Rock and Sand" is about what he sees as the differences even to conservative Evangelicals with Orthodoxy (he was actually once a student of the likes of RC Sproul and John Gerstner, I think):

I think that's a more or less fair perspective but I take issue with Fr. Josiah's notion that Luther said that councils of the Church had erred, as I believe that is potentially misleading. We believe councils can err, but that does not mean they necessarily do err. We simply do not believe a council alone is sufficient basis for dogmatic theology.

In many ways, we are closer to the Orthodox than you imagine. Orthodox believe, after all, church councils must be accepted by the faithful to be valid. And it was what Luther wanted, a fair hearing for his objections - he wanted a general council to resolve the issue of indulgences, however the cardinals he was debating with told him that he had no right to even ask for one. So it went from a matter of debating indulgences, to a matter of debating church authority, and that's where things got messy.

 

[straykat]

I do agree there are excesses possible with the use of higher criticism but I think the origins of the ethos of the Protestant mainline is more complicated than simply pinning it all on Julius Wellhausen, and much of it is due to the cultural differences between east and west, and the divergent histories of our respective religions.

It is possible to accept hypotheses such as the JEDP and be a committed serious, Christian. But what that religion looks like, of course, is going to be different in its implications. However, I do think there's a viscious and dismissive attitude in our culture- and I do not wish to pin this on the Orthodox Church necessarily, of mainline Christians as unspiritual people with shallow religion and I really think that's a misunderstanding of the mainline Protestant tradition, especially brought on by the American tendency to value passion and sincerity over reason and the intellectual life of the mind.

Well, I would say it's shallow if, say, a belief in Jesus is founded on a Jesus who wasn't even capable of prophecy and is mostly there just for ethical instruction. In this schema, what's the point of even having a liturgy that proclaims he's the Son of God? What's the point of churches lifting up their voices to sing to the Lord, when the Bible commentaries and the leadership don't even believe he's actually the Lord to begin with?

I'd even go so far as to say that those quirky "New Agers" have more faith than the Mainline Protestants at times. They actually believe Jesus is still "divine" in some sense (albeit in a heretical Gnostic sense) and could do all of these miracles and was capable of prophecy. The "New Thought" variety of new agers have all kinds of hoaky teachings of the "Christ Consciousness" and how this all culminated in Jesus Christ, who was the "first of the resurrection". And from there we all must strive for the same Mind of Christ. I'd even go so far to say that this sounds remarkably Orthodox in some spots (simply because the New Thought types borrow from Origen so much.. while the Orthodox teach the correct route of theosis and often spoke with similar philosophical concepts as Origen without falling into his stranger ideas).

Not to say all mainliners are this way though. I'm pretty sure some are heartbroken by the trends they see.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, I would say it's shallow if, say, a belief in Jesus is founded on a Jesus who wasn't even capable of prophecy and is mostly there just for ethical instruction.

I don't think that's what mainline Protestants in general teach. That perspective would be very much marginal in our churches.

In this schema, what's the point of even having a liturgy that proclaims he's the Son of God? What's the point of churches lifting up their voices to sing to the Lord, when the Bible commentaries and the leadership don't even believe he's actually the Lord to begin with?

This is not the typical mainline Protestants attitudes about Jesus. Protestants piety does focus alot on Jesus as our friend, perhaps analogous to what Orthodox think of in terms of the title Philanthropos. Jesus' lordship is therefore understood through the context of friendship- we Lutherans have a saying, that Jesus is first our Savior, and then our Lord. In many ways, Protestant piety in this respect owes its origins to western medieval spirituality, especially bridal mysticism, and is not really so inorganic and artificial as one might assume.

I'd even go so far as to say that those quirky "New Agers" have more faith than the Mainline Protestants at times. They actually believe Jesus is still "divine" in some sense (albeit in a heretical Gnostic sense) and could do all of these miracles and was capable of prophecy.

The Incarnation means that divinity is not necessarily something abstract or above us, but is concretely realized in a lowly Galilean carpenter who went around doing God's work for the Kingdom of Heaven. The error of all "theologies of glory", as we call them, is making God so transcendent that he cannot be "one of us", to refute that old 90's pop song, God is one of us.

Not to say all mainliners are this way though. I'm pretty sure some are heartbroken by the trends they see.

I don't know any that are so bitter or resentful that they would leave their church for another. Most of those types, and they are a very small minority, left years ago.

FWIW, here's two videos by leaders of mainline churches . Both talk about traditional Christian themes a great deal. Neither sounds like a closet atheist or skeptic:

 

[straykat]

I don't think that's what mainline Protestants in general teach. That perspective would be very much marginal in our churches.



This is not the typical mainline Protestants attitudes about Jesus. Protestants piety does focus alot on Jesus as our friend, perhaps analogous to what Orthodox think of in terms of the title Philanthropos. Jesus' lordship is therefore understood through the context of friendship- we Lutherans have a saying, that Jesus is first our Savior, and then our Lord. In many ways, Protestant piety in this respect owes its origins to western medieval spirituality, especially bridal mysticism, and is not really so inorganic and artificial as one might assume.



The Incarnation means that divinity is not necessarily something abstract or above us, but is concretely realized in a lowly Galilean carpenter who went around doing God's work for the Kingdom of Heaven. The error of all "theologies of glory", as we call them, is making God so transcendent that he cannot be "one of us", to refute that old 90's pop song, God is one of us.



I don't know any that are so bitter or resentful that they would leave their church for another. Most of those types, and they are a very small minority, left years ago.

What is "God's work for the Kingdom" if people de-mystify the scriptures and remove the actual "works of God"?

Another egregious example that came to mind is even short predictions by Jesus in some of these higher-critical commentaries. Like the passages in the Gospels where Jesus aims to reach Jerusalem, because he knew he would be crucified there. Or other similar statements like how he knew that by being killed that he would "bring all men to himself" - that it was the very MEANS of his glory. You'll find these commentaries air out something along the lines of "he couldn't know this would happen or what would be the result". Because again, they push a "Historical Jesus" theory that he was a revolutionary instead and woefully failed and was humiliated... and then reinterpret the whole Church as a just a bunch of poor simpletons picking up the pieces of this disaster. Also, you'll often find them interpret his recitation of Psalm 22 "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" as the sincere words of a failure. And it's always stated with the worse form of smugness and condescension.

This isn't just mainline though. There's something like this even in the Catholic NAB notes, but I can't seem to find it now (so admittedly, I'll just say to take my own words with a grain of salt, unless someone wants to help me find it).

In any case, I want nothing to do with people like this. I'm not joking when I say I'd rather spend company with a "new ager". I at least know they believe some things, and there are many more points of contact in order to show them the orthodox path.

 

[FireDragon76]

So, you think it's impossible for Jesus to feel anguish and negative emotions? Somehow, I don't. It's a great source of comfort to know that Jesus experienced the things that I do, that Jesus was human just like me.

I think we see God's work a bit differently. It's not just prestadigitation or magic acts, Jesus did God's work in ministering to the lost sheep and sinners in general, preaching to them Good News. That is God's work, as Bishop Elizabeth Eaton points out in that video I linked to. Perhaps there's not enough bells, whistles, and flash attached to that message, but I would argue it is simply due to not appreciating the transformative power of grace (and not primarily understood as a substance or mystical energy found in icons or religious rituals, but as God's unmerited favor and goodwill towards us, which makes those things meanigful in the first place).

And BTW, the idea that Jesus was a revolutionary is only one idea among many among historical Jesus scholars, and one that is quite dated. The historical Jesus perspective that is more influential in the Protestant mainline is to see Jesus as a social and religious reformer in the Jewish prophetic tradition.

 

[danbuter]

I LOVED the Father's statement that salvation began at the resurrection, not the crucifixion.

 

[straykat]

Another zinger that came to mind, after reading a little of Luke in the NAB (Catholic Bible, but it still reflects mainline scholarship).

They date Luke after AD 70, because Christ mentions the destruction of the temple (and apparently, he's incapable of something like "prophecy").

But the thing is, Luke also wrote Acts AFTER the Gospel, and it ends abruptly without even mentioning Peter and Paul in Rome, the widespread persecution of Christians by the mid 60s AD, and most importantly, he doesn't mention the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.

What they're basically saying is he only wanted to mention the destruction of the Temple by injecting it as a "fake prophecy" by Jesus in his earlier work on the Gospel.. but then completely neglect it (and literally years of persecution leading up to it) as any kind of narrative or backdrop in the book of Acts.

This isn't just skepticism, but active hostility and seeing the scriptures as being conceived in bad faith.

 

[AMM]

Another zinger that came to mind, after reading a little of Luke in the NAB (Catholic Bible, but it still reflects mainline scholarship).

They date Luke after AD 70, because Christ mentions the destruction of the temple (and apparently, he's incapable of something like "prophecy").

But the thing is, Luke also wrote Acts AFTER the Gospel, and it ends abruptly without even mentioning Peter and Paul in Rome, the widespread persecution of Christians by the mid 60s AD, and most importantly, he doesn't mention the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.

What they're basically saying is he only wanted to mention the destruction of the Temple by injecting it as a "fake prophecy" by Jesus in his earlier work on the Gospel.. but then completely neglect it (and literally years of persecution leading up to it) as any kind of narrative or backdrop in the book of Acts.

This isn't just skepticism, but active hostility and seeing the scriptures as being conceived in bad faith.

I've also thought that the mentions of the destruction of the temple lend support to a pre-70 date of authorship. Basically, if they were wanting to justify their claim to accuracy, they would have mentioned that the prophecy came true! Why leave it as a boring "Oh Jesus said this bad thing was going to happen" when they can add on "and it did happen, just as he said!" I've always thought that supports an earlier date, not a later one. Your point is good too though - Acts just cuts off abruptly; it was either a very unfinished document or it was actually written earlier