Comments on: Another Biblioblog http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2006/10/another-biblioblog/ A biblioblog Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:14:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Blue Cord » Pre-Scriptural Levels http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2006/10/another-biblioblog/#comment-1875 Blue Cord » Pre-Scriptural Levels Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:00:37 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2006/10/another-biblioblog/#comment-1875 [...] I wanted to respond to a question raised by Steve Cook in a comment on a previous post.  Steve asked, [W]hen you say that you tend to focus on the “historical setting” of biblical texts, do you mean the first, primitive setting—peeling back the layers to get at the onion-core? If so, why prioritize the core? How do you know you want dive down to a pre-scriptural level? [...] […] I wanted to respond to a question raised by Steve Cook in a comment on a previous post.  Steve asked, [W]hen you say that you tend to focus on the “historical setting” of biblical texts, do you mean the first, primitive setting—peeling back the layers to get at the onion-core? If so, why prioritize the core? How do you know you want dive down to a pre-scriptural level? […]

]]> By: Stephen Cook http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2006/10/another-biblioblog/#comment-1869 Stephen Cook Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:11:15 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2006/10/another-biblioblog/#comment-1869 Hi Kevin, Interesting discussion and thanks for the referal to Katagrapho. I just visited over there, and will definitely return. I had a question: when you say that you tend to focus on the "historical setting" of biblical texts, do you mean the first, primitive setting---peeling back the layers to get at the onion-core? If so, why prioritize the core? How do you know you want dive down to a pre-scriptural level? What if you peel away the onion, and there is no core? :-) ---Steve Hi Kevin, Interesting discussion and thanks for the referal to Katagrapho. I just visited over there, and will definitely return. I had a question: when you say that you tend to focus on the “historical setting” of biblical texts, do you mean the first, primitive setting—peeling back the layers to get at the onion-core? If so, why prioritize the core? How do you know you want dive down to a pre-scriptural level? What if you peel away the onion, and there is no core? :-) —Steve

]]> By: Chris Spinks http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2006/10/another-biblioblog/#comment-1867 Chris Spinks Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:49:17 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2006/10/another-biblioblog/#comment-1867 Kevin, I hear you and I think I understand the impulse. But, I would be interested to know how your view of the text as sacred does not influence (maybe "dictate" is too strong here) your interpretive choices. And since, I would argue that the view of the text as sacred is a theological perspective, your theology has/does/will influence what you do as an interpreter. Though I am not terribly conversant in Alasdair MacIntyre's ideas, I believe that his idea of traditions may speak to this debate. Let me say as well, that it thrills me that your department is even taking the time to discuss this issue. Whether you all come down where I do or not, the conversation is healthy. Kevin, I hear you and I think I understand the impulse. But, I would be interested to know how your view of the text as sacred does not influence (maybe “dictate” is too strong here) your interpretive choices. And since, I would argue that the view of the text as sacred is a theological perspective, your theology has/does/will influence what you do as an interpreter. Though I am not terribly conversant in Alasdair MacIntyre’s ideas, I believe that his idea of traditions may speak to this debate. Let me say as well, that it thrills me that your department is even taking the time to discuss this issue. Whether you all come down where I do or not, the conversation is healthy.

]]> By: Kevin A. Wilson http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2006/10/another-biblioblog/#comment-1854 Kevin A. Wilson Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:03:15 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2006/10/another-biblioblog/#comment-1854 Thanks for the comment. I realize that this is a dichotomy you wanted to avoid, but it is the dichotomy I wanted to highlight. This is the debate we are currently having in my department, and I am championing the side that says theology comes after interpretation. I would argue that my view of the text as sacred dictates that I have to do something with the text after I interpret it but does not dictate my interpretation. I hope we can have a good discussion on this. I hope in the next few days to post my thoughts on this, and I would appreciate your comments. I look forward to the dialogue. Thanks for the comment. I realize that this is a dichotomy you wanted to avoid, but it is the dichotomy I wanted to highlight. This is the debate we are currently having in my department, and I am championing the side that says theology comes after interpretation. I would argue that my view of the text as sacred dictates that I have to do something with the text after I interpret it but does not dictate my interpretation.

I hope we can have a good discussion on this. I hope in the next few days to post my thoughts on this, and I would appreciate your comments. I look forward to the dialogue.

]]> By: Chris Spinks http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2006/10/another-biblioblog/#comment-1851 Chris Spinks Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:53:59 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2006/10/another-biblioblog/#comment-1851 Kevin, thanks for the referral and for visiting my blog. It seems we could have a very lengthy and fruitful conversation. I would like to note that by leaving out a short phrase from my About page you have set up a dichotomy I would want to avoid (i.e. interpreting the NT vs. theology). This could open up the proverbial can of worms, but I said that my dissertation had "more to do with readings of the NT as Scripture", not just readings of the NT. When we understand what we are reading to be sacred we cannot but help to interpret theologically. At least that's part of my argument. I think part of the issue is how we have conceptualized the disciplines of "biblical studies" and "systematic theology". These are modern constructs. I'd better stop before this gets too long. I would commend _Between Two Horizons_ ed. by Green and Turner (2000). Kevin, thanks for the referral and for visiting my blog. It seems we could have a very lengthy and fruitful conversation. I would like to note that by leaving out a short phrase from my About page you have set up a dichotomy I would want to avoid (i.e. interpreting the NT vs. theology). This could open up the proverbial can of worms, but I said that my dissertation had “more to do with readings of the NT as Scripture”, not just readings of the NT. When we understand what we are reading to be sacred we cannot but help to interpret theologically. At least that’s part of my argument. I think part of the issue is how we have conceptualized the disciplines of “biblical studies” and “systematic theology”. These are modern constructs. I’d better stop before this gets too long. I would commend _Between Two Horizons_ ed. by Green and Turner (2000).

]]>