The Library

1:07 AM

...although the relative dating of 4 Macc and Acts appears to be up for discussion. — Susan ♦ 52 secs ago

The relative dating of the speeches, of course, is not, but, @Davïd ....do you think Peter was speaking Greek in Acts 1? (A real question.) (Trying to avoid Acts 2, but I guess probably the answer should be the same.) I don’t know what was going on in Maccabees.

Susan

1:21 AM

And thank you for correcting that name.

Wad Cheber

@ScottS This is especially problematic for me. "We can't do it perfectly, so let's not do it at all" is an incredibly defeatist attitude. The best we can do is to do the best we can do. This is true for everything else, so why would it not apply in this case?

Jack Douglas

2:36 AM

@WadCheber actually I think the argument is "we can't do it at all, so let's not pretend we can"

2

7

A: Is it possible to be unbiased when interpreting Scripture?

Is it possible to "bracket" your bias during interpretation, enabling you to essentially approach the text in an "unbiased" manner, despite the bias that is technically present? It is possible to "bracket" a subset of your bias but not all of it. As an analogy, if you do not like the look o...

@Davïd I wondered whether you might be able to settle an argument for me that prompted me to ask this question on History.SE

Susan

2:55 AM

@JackDouglas If I’m reading correctly, I think Jon Ericson referred to all four gospels as secondary.

Wad Cheber

5:20 AM

@JackDouglas That's a very pessimistic view. I'm cynical, but not that cynical.

Davïd

8:36 AM

@JackDouglas No chance of settling it, but I tossed in my £0.02, FWIW. (Note the caveat lector included there in the small type!)

@Susan I have no idea - my guess would be "no", not speaking Greek. Could have a look at Sterling for more, though.

Jack Douglas

10:35 AM

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the question is asking for the views of a professional historian. — Jack Douglas 31 secs ago

^^^ I'd like to close the question, then edit it both here and on History.SE in the hope of getting a tailored version open on both. If any mod is willing to help by closing it here that'd be much appreciated!

Susan

@JackDouglas Let me know if you want it unlocked.

Jack Douglas

thanks!

Susan

@Davïd Then I suppose the phrase is Luke’s? Seems pretty Greek. That book seems pretty intimidating.

Davïd

10:54 AM

@JackDouglas I'd recommend simply removing the parenthesied bit in the first sentence: "` (i.e. assuming the author was in contact with actual eyewitnesses)`" - not really needed, and was already a distraction for one respondent.

Jack Douglas

3

Q: Can a source be considered 'primary' if it is not written by an eyewitness and partly based on another source?

The example I have in mind is Luke-Acts, but the question is not about that source in particular, I'm interested in the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' in the technical sense they would be used by a professional historian, not in any other context. Luke-Acts was not written by an eye-witness to ...

I haven't quite done that, but do you think I've improved the question?

Davïd

@Susan I'm content to think the formulations of direct speech in Acts are Luke's own, not transcripts taken verbatim.

Jack Douglas

Thanks very much for your answer here btw

@Susan yes please, and thanks!

Davïd

@JackDouglas I think so. You might further remove or adjust the "concerning the life of Jesus" bit.

My own suggestion would be to gloss it as: "concerning the life of Jesus and the spread of nascent Christianity" or the like.

I.e., Acts isn't going to add much to "historical Jesus" research (I think!), although it does contain a New Testament instance of the agrapha.

@JackDouglas Hope it's sufficiently bulky to be worthwhile. I tried to keep it short. One could, like Mason, go on ad nauseam.

(Although I quite enjoy his writing: he's very clear. And FWIW, @Susan, I have it on good authority that even he finds Sterling's work a bit intimidating!)

@Davïd Or better - "concerning the life of Jesus and the earliest church" ... or something! Otherwise, you could just cap it at Luke, and not include Acts. @JackDouglas

@JackDouglas - in addition to the MANY historians and philosophers of history that Mason interacts with (his hero is R.G. Collingwood), see also this professional historians' site and these resources in particular.

See also Marwick's slightly tetchy article: scroll down to 7. Primary and Secondary Sources. It's much like the Princeton definition, and his "sources which came into existence within the period being investigated" fits for Luke-Acts ... depending on the strictness with which "period" is regarded! (Debates, debates.)

Susan

11:29 AM

@JackDouglas Done.

This is really not hermeneutics.

Susan

12:05 PM

@Davïd The “not transcripts taken verbatim” part seems to be a given if the speeches weren’t in Greek. What exactly “Luke’s own” means (and how that compares with the formulations of direct speech in the gospel accounts) isn’t clear in my mind. You don’t need to respond to that. (As if maybe you thought you did.)

Susan

12:28 PM

Surely the community can’t undelete something that that owner has chosen to delete?! I realize the circumstances surrounding the deletion were fishy, but forced undeletion seems inappropriate.

Jack Douglas

1:46 PM

@Davïd Thanks, that's the option I ended up choosing

ScottS

3:45 PM

@JackDouglas Yes, that is my point. There are many people (on both sides) that claim neutrality, but are self-deluded if they believe they have achieved it. One can get "closer" to neutral by examining from various sides of the issue, but as your link notes, cannot get to a neutral point.

@WadCheber You seem to be missing my point. A Christian could not correctly interpret Hindu texts if the Christian either (a) disbelieved Hindus even exist, or (b) believed Hindus exist, but disbelieved they authored the texts. This is because they are starting from a frame of reference that is untrue about the author, which means they would have a wrong contextual reference for the writing. In such a case, the Christian may still know what was written but not what was meant.

@WadCheber Agree, but now parallel to Scripture. If approached atheistically, one has already ruled out at the very least God's influence upon the authorship of the text, and certainly any idea of dual authorship as expounded by many Christians. In either case, a potentially wrong (if in fact God does exist and did influence the text) contextual frame of reference is the starting point, based on one's prior belief.

This will bring about a misinterpretation of what is meant (not necessarily what was written).

This, of course, can be flipped. If there is in fact no God, then a Christian (or Jew for the Tanak) has a wrong frame of reference for the context of Scripture's writing.

In either case, what one believes about the authoring and context of the writing of the text itself is going to influence one's interpretation of it.

Your recent discussion with @ThaddeusB highlights this point.

@WadCheber You see the author of John one way, influencing your interpretation of the meaning of the text itself.

@ThaddeusB sees the authorship differently. This difference in interpretation is driven by each of the two views on authorship. Both of you are acknowledging what the text "says," but you are differing on what the text "means" to the original author, because of your differing views about the nature and character of that author. Neither of you are approaching it from a "neutral" stance, because you cannot.

At best, one can look at the text from both views of John being or not being anti-Semite, but where one actually ends up for the answer to that is going to depend not on purely what was stated in the text, but what one understands of the author of the text itself from decisions made outside the text; i.e. who wrote John, when was it really written, what was its purpose, was it divinely inspired or not, etc.

ThaddeusB

New answer to an old question:

1

A: What was Onan's sin?

The answer to your question is best examined by looking at Onan's sin in the context of the exchange between Judah and Tamar and requires a good understanding and background of the place of women in ancient middle eastern culture and the purpose of Leverite marriage practices. We must remember t...

I'm shocked it took more than three years to get this one answered.

ScottS

4:23 PM

@Dan The problem is, an "academic historical-critical" scholar is not neutral either (and is only one form of approaching hermeneutics). Many of those scholars do not believe (1) God exists, or at least had any actual influence on the text (much less inspiring it), (2) do not believe in miracles, (3) take a particular view on the development of the text itself (related to #1; i.e. that there had to be sources, not direct inspiration).

The historical-critical method tends to promote the human side of writing at the expense of acknowledging any divine side, which is definitely not a neutral view of religious texts.

That is not to say what is investigated is itself wrong (i.e the general methodology, "to examine the text’s historical origins, such as: the time, the place in which the text was written, its sources, the events, dates, persons, places, things, and customs that are mentioned or implied in the text."

(These points are no different that the grammatical-historical interpretation method [which I hold], perhaps a bit more rigorous on the historical side, but the principles are the same.)

But one's view on God's role upon Scripture (or even His existence at all) is going to influence nearly every one of those answers. So one's presuppositions will carry into the historical-critical analysis, and ultimately then the interpretation.

Of course, as you noted, some forms of interpretation care nothing (or very little) for these points, viewing the text as purely "spiritual" and so spiritually discerned, or as a word that matters little for what it was written for, but rather what it means to me now, or various other methods that discount the historical aspects.

(I realize you know these things, but just further pointing out why such a stance could not be wholly sustained.)

Dan

5:12 PM

@JackDouglas bingo. @WadCheber it's not an issue of not doing the best we can, it's an issue of no one can agree on which approach is 'best' - it's a false pursuit (which I tried to capture by calling it pseudo - neutrality, but even so essentially what i was doing was saying, my way should be the default perspective

Dan

5:23 PM

@ScottS agreed

@ScottS it never hurts to clarify, I think we are in agreement

Paul Vargas

5:58 PM

Hello, friends! :D Do you know a reliable (and biblical) list of the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

I have seen some lists, but are distinct from one another.

ThaddeusB

6:34 PM

@PaulVargas The lists are at Romans 12:4—8, 1 Corinthians 12:1—13, 1 Corinthians 12:27—30, and 1 Peter 4:9—11. Different lists (and number of gifts) arise from different views on what are synonyms. The Catholic Church officially recognizes 7 gifts, while the largest number I've seen stretches it out to 25 (by adding a couple additional passages to those above)

Susan

7:03 PM

@JackDouglas Is the plan to re-open the primary sources question (on BH) at some point? Happy to expedite it if so, but I won’t be around until tomorrow.

Paul Vargas

> Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. (1 Corinthians 13:8 ESV)

^^^ Is the knowledge a gift? What do you think? :)

Susan

7:18 PM

@PaulVargas καταργηθήσεται = "will pass away"? That's kind of lame. (I have no idea about the answer to your question. Just tangential grumblings. I rarely grumble about the ESV. They’re probably right. Whatever.)

Paul Vargas

^^^ From this book. Thank you, @Susan

Susan

7:43 PM

@PaulVargas Yah, “be abolished”, I like better. That word goes with Rom 6:6 for me....our old man was crucified with him ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας....in order that the body of sin might..... be brought to nothing is the ESV there (RVR: para que el cuerpo del pecado sea deshecho - more succinct) which seems to be the basic sense of the word . “Pass away” makes it grammatically active (presumably to avoid the implication of an agent?) and then waters it down....to my ear....

Davïd

@ThaddeusB @PaulVargas Possibly worth adding Ephesians 4:7-13 into that list, with the "gifts" themselves detailed in v. 11.

Paul Vargas

@Susan Oh! Spanish! ;)

@Davïd Thanks! -- By the way, did you install the font in your Andrioid device?

Davïd

@Susan @PaulVargas + "abolished" by G.G. Findlay in the old Exp Grk Testament.

@PaulVargas No, sadly. I'm working up the courage. :)

Would love to have it, though, because the default Hebrew font is pretty poor. The Greek is lovely, by contrast.

Paul Vargas

8:02 PM

@Davïd It's not easy for me to follow a sermon using the application. I think so.

I guess it depends on the speed with which the preacher mentions the verses.

^^^ The challenge is to reach the verse in just three clicks.

ThaddeusB

@PaulVargas As far as I know, "knowledge" always makes the list: "For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit," (I Cor 12:8, ESV)

Transcript for