The Library

7:38 AM

@Davïd, or other interested parties: Do you know anything good or bad about any of the Baylor Handbooks other than Ruth? (Hebrew. I'm oddly uninterested in the Greek, though maybe I should give it a try -- there are a bunch of them, so somebody must think it's a good idea.)

Davïd

8:37 AM

@Susan I've used two or three others of the Hebrew ones (never tried the Greek). My take is that authors approach the task quite differently from each other. Holmstedt (of the Ruth handbook) was blogging his Esther handbook for a while. I find it helpful reading over a specialist's shoulder, even if there are quibbles.

Susan

10:34 AM

@Davïd Thanks, I guess what I was trying to figure out was if you had specific recommendations for one over another.

Wow, that's a hefty bit of Esther available on his blog! I'm a little intimidated by LBH though. If that's what it is. Doesn't seem like the most straightforward thing for people who are learning the language. I guess one has to get over that at some point.

Davïd

11:03 AM

@Susan Holmstedt, anyway, is pretty insistent on these being primarily for "intermediate" readers, although this readership isn't identified on the publisher's series page. My hunch is that it would be a tricky task to pitch this appropriately.

They seem pretty tied up with one or another "theory" of linguistic analysis. Sometimes the concern seems more to be with applying a new set of categories than clarifying the language (clause, phrase, word) under discussion. I still find a LOT of value in the old volumes by Driver and Burney.

Too bad there weren't more in that "series". Or would that the BHHB series was a little less wedded to novel (?) modes of analysis.

Davïd

11:36 AM

Well, lookie here: Driver followed the lead of Spurrell's Genesis (2nd edn, 1896). I wasn't aware of that one. I was looking for a different comment in Driver's preface, and noticed that acknowledgment.

Davïd

3:55 PM

@ScottS I'm wondering what the obstacle is to asking "Are there any inerrantists who find divinely inspired, non-authorial scribal/editorial activity in the Majority Text of the NT?" on Christianity.SE. Except that it remains a "fishing" expedition (perhaps @Caleb could comment?). As I read it (and I've read it many times! too many...), that's the essence of your BH.SE Q currently on hold -- though I'm probably now in "hesitant angel" territory!

Jack Douglas

4:10 PM

4

Q: How does John 5:28-29 fit with the dispensational hermeneutic

The dispensational hermeneutic has been summarized as: “Consistently literal or plain interpretation is indicative of a dispensational approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures,” declared Charles Ryrie in 1965.[see here] Dispensationalism teaches that there will be two resurrections, one...

^^^ this was closed by 2 regular users and a mod, then reopened by 5 regular users (only 1 of them prompted by me!) — I thought I'd mention that in here as it is relevent to the current meta discussions.

ScottS

@Davïd Mainly because I have noted is some other places my reluctance to engage on C.SE. I spend more time than I probably should engaging on BH.SE, and I know my weaknesses... I could spend hours over at C.SE. So I remove temptation by choosing not to engage there, but only here.

James Shewey

That really puts it 5 to 5 as I noted in my meta post. I still think it is off topic for the reasons I detailed there.

ScottS

4:26 PM

@JackDouglas @JamesShewey I think that post shows how there is still, and probably always will be, differences of opinion regarding the level of theology allowed on BH.SE. Specifically, the fact that one's theology drives (at various levels) one's interpretation. So to have a site about interpretation, one has to engage some with the theology of others.

I view that question as asking about interpretation, specifically challenging the Dispensational interpretation that is influenced by their theological view on other texts. So it is very much about the hermenutical approach, and just because that approach is influenced by their theology (just as all approaches are), it does not make it invalid for the site (IMO).

And yes, that is a similar reason why I still do not see my question as invalid for BH.SE either, but I am attempting to rework it to accommodate some of the less theologically tolerant on BH.SE.

James Shewey

I understand. IMO, it 1) still originates and is driven by theology - even if it impacts interpretation and 2) therefore belongs on Christianity.SE.

Jack Douglas

4:45 PM

@JamesShewey quite a few questions asked on C.SE would be on-topic here, and vice versa — I'm not sure if you mean to imply that there shouldn't be any overlap?

James Shewey

@JackDouglas - I would bias that way wherever possible, but in life there are always exceptions

Jack Douglas

Overlap is more the norm than the exception in my experience on SE — U&L and Ubuntu are probably the most blatant examples but DBA.SE which I spend most time on has a huge overlap with SO

ScottS

6:03 PM

@JackDouglas @JamesShewey I see the primary distinction between BH.SE & C.SE, besides the inclusiveness (not just Christian on BH.SE), is not theology vs. no theology (since I believe that is an impossible distinction), but that BH.SE requires that the questions relate to the text, in whatever stage--formation, preservation, interpretation; all of which will have differing relations to one's theology based on textual/hermeneutical approach.

2

As long as one's question is in relation to the text and views on it, not about how one has or should respond to the text, it seems appropriate to be on BH.SE, whereas response to the text is more the realm of C.SE. But there would still be some overlap there.

James Shewey

6:19 PM

@ScottS - I think you can distinguish. I view Hermeneuitcs as a subset of Biblical Studies and in turn Biblical studies as endeavoring to ask the question "What does the Bible say?". On the other hand, I view Theology as other people's opinion's on what the Bible says.

In some cases, Theology is people's opinions (Eg, Spurgeon on Calvinism) on other people's opinions on what the Bible says.

And frequently I find that those opinions are poorly informed in greek, hebrew and cultural context.

This is why I prefer to separate the two and draw a distinction. My personal bias is that the Bible is not inerrant, only infallible and I view the original concept of inerrancy to be a mostly modern concept.

It is hard then for inerrancy to be material to the original meaning of the text in most cases if it wasn't really a concern of the author.

But in other words, I care what I think about the Bible and what it actually says, not what a bunch of other people think about it.

ScottS

7:05 PM

@JamesShewey If Theology is "other people's opinion's on what the Bible says," then every interpretation of a text is a theology, because interpretation is one's opinion about what the Bible says. So every answer on BH.SE is promoting theology. And I actually agree with that, because I do not see that theology can be distinguished from interpretation.

2

However, I view theology as what one believes about God, His word, and reality. So that you believe there is a God and that the Bible is infallible is your theology influencing your hermeneutic. That I believe there is a God and that the Bible is inerrant and infallible is my theology. That an atheist believes there is no God and so infallible and inerrant are irrelevant concepts is his/her theology.

But we are all approaching the text with theological presuppositions behind our hermeneutic, including whether language is even something that can truly express meaning or not, or how well it can.

Susan

9:01 PM

-1

Q: Christophany: the I AM in Ex 3:14; Isa 43.10; Isa 51.12 (and Jude 5) / The Aramaic Peshitta

I understand I AM as the name of God, who Jesus identifies himself as Jn 8.58 etc with or without predicate. I've read somewhere that Ex 3.14 is better translated as "I'm I AM" (rather than I AM who/that I AM?) What is in the Aramaic Peshitta at Ex 3:14b? I know that the LXX says 'tell them ...

christology

Is anybody interested in either helping ^^ or putting it out of its misery?

Seems to me a little too much like "a place to talk about Lucifer, pre-incarnate Christ, and stuff".

Librarian

11:50 PM

0

Q: Is there disconnect between what you say and what you do when moderating?

Posting this here, I also posted this as an answer to a question linked below, so people could see the screenshots. My point in posting here is to ask this question: Do the people who moderate this site think there's a disconnect between what the site docs tell users to ask, and the criticism th...

discussion

Transcript for