About your meta post, what I wanted to ask you is: do you consider typical posts from Mike Bull and Bob Jones to be good things that should be protected, or part of the problem? They both think they have hermeneutics but I'm not so sure they do. Are answers like those part of your intended scope?
I think those posts are not good as they only follow their 'own' individual hermeneutic. I think we can only protect a known common hermeneutic. However if a person starts a post by saying 'I am using my own peculiar hermeneutic' then it would not bother me as much, I might just down-vote. I am only concerned with protecting published hermeneutics common to a given faith.
@MonicaCellio - I do not like the eastern orthodox hermeneutic that uses church father allegories as an acceptable basis to interpret scripture, but even though I dislike it it, It should be protected as it is widely published and followed.
(I'd personally like all answers to do at least one of: (a) actually show all the work or (b) declare and correctly follow a real hermeneutic. The best of the latter would also do the former, as a teaching process.)
@Mike I don't know those ones. Has anybody here used them, or are you anticipating?
I'm leery of "church fathers" for the same reason I'm leery of "rabbis" -- if you show the reasoning then fine, but ungrounded-in-text appeals to authority by themselves don't mean much. (Aside from things like "what is the grammar of this word" and you appeal to a well-regarded grammar or lexicon, I guess.)
@MonicaCellio - More anticipating. I am theorizing more than seeng things. However Jon and Jas have taken swipes at historicism and Caleb has siggested applications should be avoided and I think this potentially threatens historicism which is a favourtie well published hermeneutic I want to be clearly protected. I do not want to defend myself on that in the future. Zt would be nice just to refer them to a charter that says historicism is totally ok.
@Mike understood. By asking for examples I wasn't challenging you but trying to understand you. If you happen to come across examples of exegesis using the hermeneutics you're concerned about, please add links to your meta post or drop into chat and share them. In principle I agree that all "real" hermeneutics are in-scope, but if some of them are at the level of Mike Bull's, then I'd have a problem with that. So I need to better understand what we're talking about.
@MonicaCellio I'm looking at this. It appears to me that the connection is that a sorceress used herbs and drugs for occult purposes (NET notes). Those who argue for "poisoner" seem to reason that 1) a sorceress uses them for the wrong purposes, 2) our purposes are okay, therefore, it can't be our practice condemned in the Bible.
they can't defend it from Hebrew. See Exodus 7:11 says that Pharaoh called forth his wise men and sorcerers. Very odd that he would call for the royal poisoners. And Nebuchanezer wants his royal poisoners to interpret his dream in Dn 2:2.
But, yes, the Greek word for this kind of sorcerer, one who uses herbs and drugs, is pharmakous, which gave us pharmacy. Could make an undefendable defense from that.
Am I just missing the point entirely here or is this answer illogical and hard to follow? I'm just not sure because it was upvoted so clearly at least one other person found it helpful. I think it has the potential to be an interesting point, I just have no idea how he is getting from point A to point B. As it stands, it seems nonsensical and irrelevant to me. It doesn't directly answer the question.
Aristotle's point is that the question "why?" (δἱα τἱ;) is the foundation of what we call "science." Just because the question uses the preposition δἱα does not mean Aristotle is commenting on that meaning of the word itself. He is critiquing Plato's philosophy of Forms. Unless I'm missing something....
@FrankLuke ah -- so they take what's clearly sorcery in the Hebrew (many other uses of the word, as you say), instead go to the Greek where it's translated in a way that allows other interpretations, and then go with those other interpretations without regard for the original context? Thanks for the explanation!
@Sarah somehow I don't think you being on a text-based site is what slowed his download down. :-) See you later I hope!
@Dan I wasn't able to follow that answer either. I hope he clarifies in response to your comment. It's not his first unclear answer, alas. I think there's a language barrier, which doesn't help.
@MonicaCellio Yep. But only if they take only this verse. The following verses in Greek also use forms of pharakous to translate forms of kashaph: Ex 7:11 (Pharaoh), Dt 18:10 (in a list of types of magic users), 2 Chron 33:6 (list of magic users), Dn 2:2 (Neb calls them forth), and Mal 3:5.
I started my search from the Hebrew kashaph, so every time the Hebrew had kashaph, the LXX uses pharmakous. I want to see if there are other places in the LXX using pharmakous and what Hebrew words it comes from. I just found that pharmakous is used in the NT. I'll check that also.
IMO, This would be a great question for the site.
Three times in Revelation so far. 22:15, 21:8, 18:23.
@FrankLuke ok, I'll write it up as a question. Thanks for the help! It'll be particularly interesting to see other contexts of pharmakous, either texts that are originally in Greek where it might mean something different, or other Hebrew words also translated that way.
The Hebrew word כַשֵּׁף is typically translated "sorceror" in Hebrew-to-English translations. Paro had court sorcerors replicate some of God's miracles and Nebuchanezer asks his sorcerors to interpret his dream in Daniel. We are not to allow a מְכַשֵּׁפָה to live (Ex 22:17).
Yet, I learned rec...