What is your opinion? - The intended readership of Hebrews.

Aaron112 said:

Yet they rarely do. Unless the Creator Draws them, they don't find Him.

Click to expand...

It's a pity, isn't it, that the things about God and His Son that caused me to align myself with Him, have had no effect on most everyone else ?

Xeno.of.athens said:

Without intending to sanction bad behaviors and some of the stuff that we see from Christians. It is worth remembering that people are people. So even the people who do some stupid, naughty or bad things. May not at heart be naughty and bad. So keeping charity in the way we look I at the world around me always helps me. It helps me because I can see that other people can do some odd things and they're still quite wonderful underneath. That's my 2 cents worth.

Click to expand...

I see no good in anyone who serves anything but God.

Fervent said:

And it's never been my reasoning, which was simply pointing out that the lack of greeting in the text is of more interest to whether or not we should be concerned about what the audience is than what I view as misguided commitments to a particular method of hermeneutic investigation.

Click to expand...

I mentioned this before, but it should be a concern if we are serious about discovering the timeless principles in the text. As we will only know whether it has bearing on the text if we exegete. You may see this as misguided and you are certainly entitled to that view, however I see it as thorough.

Fervent said:

What I mean is that when it comes to exegesis in a strict sense the only thing that matters is the literal meaning of the words and structure of the text. Exegesis involves processes, but ultimately its concerns are linguistic and not broader historical issues. Though interpretation is not exhausted by exegesis, it is simply our starting point.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, the grammatical-historical exegesis is actually the more simpler of exegetical approaches. But yes it is a process and starting point. As we know words find its meaning in it context. I usually joke to point this out, but if you have to tell the more techno savvy generation that Moses broke the tablet, they'd most likely ask you. Was it Samsung or Apple?.

Fervent said:

It's the order in which the questions are engaged with, as too often exegesis is approached as if we have to work through a checklist of questions before we start looking at the text rather than beginning with the brass tack questions of literary construction.

Click to expand...

Again not necessarily... to be honest I start my studies with lectio divinia. I find its more enriching and refreshing to the process to orientate myself to Gods presence in the text, by just being present with Him, before beginning the intellectual process.

Fervent said:

That's part of it, but also extrabiblical historical knowledge that plays into understanding how these texts are constructed. Knowledge from external sources(both intertextual and extrabiblical) about what was going on at that point in history, approximate dating of the letters and the like. None of this is directly exegetical, but all of it plays into interpretation.

Click to expand...

Yes, intertextual and intratextual studies are infact valid steps or exploratory tools (so as not to sound like a checklist) in exegetical models or simply put the cross references in and outside. And if thoroughly analysed impacts the meaning of the text.

Fervent said:

Yes, but more often the questions we're asking are of more interest to a modern critical scholarship way of thinking than one in keeping with the concerns the authors of the text would have been concerned with. So even when we begin trying to address these larger questions we must begin with the text itself and ask "What considerations might the author make in writing this?"

Click to expand...

Yes, understanding the text from the original author's perspective and staying grounded in the text itself, is the essential foundation before attempting to cross the principilizing bridge to apply to a modern audience. Hence my view of taking it serious.

Fervent said:

Exegesis starts with the text. Grammar, diction, literary genre...historical context issues like audience require a significant level of textual engagement before we ever get to such questions. Though I know that exegetical textbooks often teach otherwise, starting with historical issues leads to introducing presuppositions and a subjective element prior to engagement with the more objective elements.

Click to expand...

Yes, starting with the text itself is crucial, and that grammatical and literary analysis should precede historical, but also historical is important because words can have different meaning depending on context. And of course being mindful of presuppositions. There are various exegetical models to employ some depending on what the genre of the book is. Others depending on the time one has for study. In my experience, a mixed approach can be effective, but important is the textual analysis to ensure a solid foundation for interpretation.

Rose_bud said:

I mentioned this before, but it should be a concern if we are serious about discovering the timeless principles in the text. As we will only know whether it has bearing on the text if we exegete. You may see this as misguided and you are certainly entitled to that view, however I see it as thorough.

Click to expand...

You seem to misunderstand my objection, as I agree exegesis is critical. But exegesis concerns itself exclusively with developing the literal meaning of the text. Notions of timeless principles are a deeper interpretive frame than exegesis, which is just the question what is the best literal meaning of the text at hand.

Rose_bud said:

Not necessarily, the grammatical-historical exegesis is actually the more simpler of exegetical approaches. But yes it is a process and starting point. As we know words find its meaning in it context. I usually joke to point this out, but if you have to tell the more techno savvy generation that Moses broke the tablet, they'd most likely ask you was it Samsung or Apple.

Click to expand...

There's a habit among some to overcontextualize, and beginning with the historical background is only of limited interest that is more appealling to an academic minded person. The problem is too often historical questions are driving when what should be driving is the linguistic details, particularly when we're dealing with a language like Greek that is so grammatically precise.

Rose_bud said:

Again not necessarily... to be honest I start my studies with lectio divinia. I find its more enriching and refreshing to the process to orientate myself to Gods presence in the text, by just being present with Him, before beginning the intellectual process.

Click to expand...

We're talking about exegesis, which is a specific domain of study only concerned with the literal meaning of the text. Broader interpretation concerns and spiritual practices aren't relevant to exegetical work, though they do play a role in developing a full understanding of the text.

Rose_bud said:

Yes, intertextual and intratextual studies are infact valid steps or tools (so as not to sound like a checklist) in exegetical models or simply put the cross references in and outside. And if thoroughly analysed impacts the meaning of the text.

Click to expand...

You seem to be using exegesis in a broader sense than I do.

Rose_bud said:

Yes, understanding the text from the original author's perspective and staying grounded in the text itself, is the essential foundation before attempting to cross the principilizing bridge to apply to a modern audience. Hence my view of taking it serious.

Click to expand...

The issue is that questions like "who is the intended audience" is a distinctly modern way of analyzing a text, because in the ancient world texts were basically public and it was exceedingly rare that a specific group was intended. Letters were circulars, and the greetings served an honorific function not an identifying one. That isn't to say there aren't points where there are targets in the letters, but that starting with questions like that are as likely to lead us astray as they are to provide us with valuable insights. What matters is what is in the text.

Rose_bud said:

Yes, starting with the text itself is crucial, and that grammatical and literary analysis should precede historical, but also historical is important because words can have different meaning depending on context. And of course being mindful of presuppositions. There are various exegetical models to employ some depending on what the genre of the book is. Others depending on the time one has for study. In my experience, a mixed approach can be effective, but important is the textual analysis to ensure a solid foundation for interpretation.

Click to expand...

Yes, historical is important. But that doesn't mean asking the kinds of questions that modern folk concern themselves with in textual analysis, especially when there are strong historical reasons to suspect that such things aren't particularly important, or at least not as important as modern interpreters make them out to be. And what kinds of historical questions we are asking should find their origin within the text, not as priors or from academic perspectives.

Fervent said:

You seem to misunderstand my objection, as I agree exegesis is critical. But exegesis concerns itself exclusively with developing the literal meaning of the text. Notions of timeless principles are a deeper interpretive frame than exegesis, which is just the question what is the best literal meaning of the text at hand.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it deeper, I would call it the culmination or end result or ultimate goal of the exegesis, unless of of course you believe we stop with literal meanings which would be of no use as the entire intent of exegetical study is to find the principles to apply.

Fervent said:

There's a habit among some to overcontextualize, and beginning with the historical background is only of limited interest that is more appealling to an academic minded person. The problem is too often historical questions are driving when what should be driving is the linguistic details, particularly when we're dealing with a language like Greek that is so grammatically precise.

Click to expand...

Sure, I think we all risk overcontextualising at times. But I believe to a certain extent, it's both, purely because words, Greek/Hebrew in fact any language in general, find its meaning in its context.

Fervent said:

We're talking about exegesis, which is a specific domain of study only concerned with the literal meaning of the text. Broader interpretation concerns and spiritual practices aren't relevant to exegetical work, though they do play a role in developing a full understanding of the text.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm talking about it as a process (and maybe this is why you may see it as a checklist, I consider it as an entire process). You seem to critique the fact that it appears too compartmentalised, but maybe it's because you are not seeing the forest but the trees or tree.

Fervent said:

You seem to be using exegesis in a broader sense than I do.

Click to expand...

Because in my mind it really is a process.

Fervent said:

The issue is that questions like "who is the intended audience" is a distinctly modern way of analyzing a text, because in the ancient world texts were basically public and it was exceedingly rare that a specific group was intended. Letters were circulars, and the greetings served an honorific function not an identifying one. That isn't to say there aren't points where there are targets in the letters, but that starting with questions like that are as likely to lead us astray as they are to provide us with valuable insights. What matters is what is in the text.

Click to expand...

I think we addressed this in the first post. It wasn't a question in the "ancient mind" because they knew who the audience was. They wouldn't have to ask. They wouldn't have to ask about historical context they were immersed in it, we are not.

Fervent said:

Yes, historical is important. But that doesn't mean asking the kinds of questions that modern folk concern themselves with in textual analysis, especially when there are strong historical reasons to suspect that such things aren't particularly important, or at least not as important as modern interpreters make them out to be. And what kinds of historical questions we are asking should find their origin within the text, not as priors or from academic perspectives.

Click to expand...

Which is why I mentioned in a previous post about being mindful of the "background" the bias that we come to the text with, so as not to bring to the text our own references.

Rose_bud said:

I wouldn't call it deeper, I would call it the culmination or end result or ultimate goal of the exegesis, unless of of course you believe we stop with literal meanings which would be of no use as the entire intent of exegetical study is to find the principles to apply.

Click to expand...

Historically, what you are speaking about sounds like the moral level of interpretation. The level where we look for principles to live by. Certainly application is something we hope to come out of interpretation, but that's more the concern of the homilist than the exegete.

Rose_bud said:

Sure, I think we all risk overcontextualising at times. But I believe to a certain extent, it's both, purely because words, Greek/Hebrew in fact any language in general, find its meaning in its context.

Click to expand...

That's a whole other topic I could rant about lol

Rose_bud said:

Yes, and I'm talking about it as a process (and maybe this is why you may see it as a checklist, I consider it as an entire process). You seem to critique the fact that it appears too compartmentalised, but maybe it's because you are not seeing the forest but the trees or tree.

Click to expand...

The issue for me isn't that you're looking at it procedurally but that you appear to have stock questions that you're bringing to the text, rather than examining the text and letting questions develop organically. I'm all for methodical approaches, but for me the first thing to deal with is the technical issues and from those issues questions will crop up.

Rose_bud said:

Because in my mind it really is a process.

Click to expand...

Treating it as a process is something I think is appropriate, what I find objectionable is that the process appears to be inverted to me. And it's likely because technical commentaries and academic study often present these issues as universal priors when they're not.

Rose_bud said:

I think we addressed this in the first post. It wasn't a question in the "ancient mind" because they knew who the audience was. They wouldn't have to ask.

Click to expand...

You seem to misunderstand my point about the ancient mind, because my point is our tendency to treat reading as a private affair is not reflective of how literature worked in the ancient world. Documents were basically public, in the same way that TV broadcasts in storefront windows are public. The audience is whoever wanted to listen to the letter, not a specific target group.

Rose_bud said:

Which is why I mentioned in a previous post about being mindful of the "background" the bias that we come to the text with.

Click to expand...

Sure, but my point is your procedure as far as I understand it is built on an anachronistic understanding of literature and how to understand literature. It's reflective of an approach that became popularized in the 16th century as reading became widely available and privatized.

Fervent said:

Historically, what you are speaking about sounds like the moral level of interpretation. The level where we look for principles to live by. Certainly application is something we hope to come out of interpretation, but that's more the concern of the homilist than the exegete.

Click to expand...

A homilist is first and foremost an exegete. Otherwise it just becomes another academic exercise. Shouldn't all Christians be looking for the principles to live by?

Fervent said:

That's a whole other topic I could rant about lol

Click to expand...

...lol

Fervent said:

The issue for me isn't that you're looking at it procedurally but that you appear to have stock questions that you're bringing to the text, rather than examining the text and letting questions develop organically. I'm all for methodical approaches, but for me the first thing to deal with is the technical issues and from those issues questions will crop up.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand the approach, part of the process is being fully aware of what you bring to the text, and it is not as structured as you think it is. It may be to you because you don't necessarily view it as a process.

Fervent said:

Treating it as a process is something I think is appropriate, what I find objectionable is that the process appears to be inverted to me. And it's likely because technical commentaries and academic study often present these issues as universal priors when they're not.

Click to expand...

I can understand that, and maybe at first glance when studying the theory about the various approaches it may seem rigid, but the practice is more flexible. But each to their own.

Fervent said:

You seem to misunderstand my point about the ancient mind, because my point is our tendency to treat reading as a private affair is not reflective of how literature worked in the ancient world. Documents were basically public, in the same way that TV broadcasts in storefront windows are public. The audience is whoever wanted to listen to the letter, not a specific target group.

Click to expand...

I tend to disagree, as the ancient world had personal letters and then also more communal letters. Paul was continually warning about not allowing false teachers and preachers into the group. And with the fear of persecution it may not have been as open and public as what you are suggesting, especially since in some situations Christians were regarded as a threat and enemy of the state. So most likely a balanced and cautious approach, depending on the situation.

Fervent said:

Sure, but my point is your procedure as far as I understand it is built on an anachronistic understanding of literature and how to understand literature. It's reflective of an approach that became popularized in the 16th century as reading became widely available and privatized.

Click to expand...

We will always have an element of anachronism. We are coming from a modern world to discover the ancient to return to the modern, bringing with it the timeless principles to apply. You and I were not and will never be the original audience. What we can be is mindful of the ancient time and our modern biases, so as not to read the modern into the text.

Rose_bud said:

A homilist is first and foremost an exegete. Otherwise it just becomes another academic exercise. Shouldn't all Christians be looking for the principles to live by?

Click to expand...

While they may be the same person, the tasks of the homilist and the exegete are different. The exegete's job is done when the literal meaning of the text is understood, anything beyond that is no longer exegesis. Exposition and application are undergirded by exegesis, but they are not in and of themseles exegesis.

Rose_bud said:

...lol

Click to expand...

Yeah, semantic theories are a matter of great interest to me.

Rose_bud said:

I think you misunderstand the approach, part of the process is being fully aware of what you bring to the text, and it is not as structured as you think it is. It may be to you because you don't necessarily view it as a process.

Click to expand...

I don't misunderstand the approach, as my objection is not about treating it as methodical/proedural but the particulars of how the exegetical process is often treated. Especially when there are stock questions that aren't sensitive to the historical approaches to literature.

Rose_bud said:

I can understand that, and maybe at first glance when studying the theory about the various approaches it may seem rigid, but the practice is more flexible. But each to their own.

Click to expand...

I am aware there's flexibility, but my objections are built on my experiences of how exegesis is taught at the seminary level. Which is in my view inverted because the starting point is not the technical aspects of the text but questions like "intended audience" that fail to understand how literature worked prior to the invention of the printing press and widespread literacy.

Rose_bud said:

I tend to disagree, as the ancient world had personal letters and then also more communal letters. Paul was continually warning about not allowing false teachers and preachers into the group. And with the fear of persecution it may not have been as open and public as what you are suggesting, especially since in some situations Christians were regarded as a threat and enemy of the state. So most likely a balanced and cautious approach, depending on the situation.

Click to expand...

Prior to widespread literacy written works were publically read in almost every instance. Most literate individuals were only literate enough to conduct business transactions, and writing materials were pretty scarce. Among the wealthy, there may have been some privacy in writing but in general all letters were public letters, and there aren't exceptions ot the public letter/circular letter in the NT. As for the threat of persecution, that's more of a modern imagination than what took place. Not that persecutions didn't happen, they just tended to be local and weren't unique to Christians.

Rose_bud said:

We will always have an element of anachronism. We are coming from a modern world to discover the ancient to return to the modern, bringing with it the timeless principles to apply. You and I were not and will never be the original audience. What we can be is mindful of the ancient time and our modern biases, so as not to read the modern into the text.

Click to expand...

Yes, but introducing those anachronism through our study devices and the questions we ask is poor practice. Which is what my contention is, when we focus on things that likely wouldn't have been of major concern to the authors because they are of academic concern today. Which is why my primary contention is that exegesis must begin with the technical aspects and let the questions come out of that rather than trying to answer stock questions that are often more curiousities than critical issues for understanding the text.

Fervent said:

While they may be the same person, the tasks of the homilist and the exegete are different. The exegete's job is done when the literal meaning of the text is understood, anything beyond that is no longer exegesis. Exposition and application are undergirded by exegesis, but they are not in and of themseles exegesis.

Click to expand...

As stated prior exegetical processes isn't merely about understanding literal meaning, but also about uncovering the text's theological and practical implications. Also your assertion that I somehow misunderstand the distinction between homilist and exegete is unfounded. As an ordained minister, I practice both roles, and can attest that the tasks are indeed distinct, but the notion that exegesis ends with literal meaning is overly simplistic.

Fervent said:

I don't misunderstand the approach, as my objection is not about treating it as methodical/proedural but the particulars of how the exegetical process is often treated. Especially when there are stock questions that aren't sensitive to the historical approaches to literature.

Click to expand...

I think your critique of stock questions in exegesis overlooks the value of established methodologies that have been refined over time. These questions provide a necessary framework for analysis, and many are designed to illuminate the context with the end goal of discovering meaning. And again I'll point out you appearing to be critiquing one tree amongst the forest. It's a process.

Fervent said:

I am aware there's flexibility, but my objections are built on my experiences of how exegesis is taught at the seminary level. Which is in my view inverted because the starting point is not the technical aspects of the text but questions like "intended audience" that fail to understand how literature worked prior to the invention of the printing press and widespread literacy.

Click to expand...

Starting exegesis with questions like "intended audience" has pedagogical value, as it allows students to observe/explore the settings in the text and can serve as a gateway to the deeper technical analysis. This approach may not be ideal in your view, but it's not necessarily flawed. Again as previously pointed out this becomes less "formulaic" in practice.

Fervent said:

Prior to widespread literacy written works were publically read in almost every instance. Most literate individuals were only literate enough to conduct business transactions, and writing materials were pretty scarce. Among the wealthy, there may have been some privacy in writing but in general all letters were public letters, and there aren't exceptions ot the public letter/circular letter in the NT.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I disagreed, you are merely elaborating this point. There were personal and public letters, it was an expensive process, dictation and presentation was supported by an amenuensis.

Fervent said:

As for the threat of persecution, that's more of a modern imagination than what took place. Not that persecutions didn't happen, they just tended to be local and weren't unique to Christians.

Click to expand...

You are downplaying the persecution angle. Paul's letters are full of warnings and encouragements to endure hardship and persecution. Unless you think stonings, being sawn in two, temptations and being put to death with the sword, not to mention crucifixtions were nothing to write home about.

Fervent said:

Yes, but introducing those anachronism through our study devices and the questions we ask is poor practice. Which is what my contention is, when we focus on things that likely wouldn't have been of major concern to the authors because they are of academic concern today. Which is why my primary contention is that exegesis must begin with the technical aspects and let the questions come out of that rather than trying to answer stock questions that are often more curiousities than critical issues for understanding the text.

Click to expand...

Neglecting the practical implications of exegesis is a poor practice in its own right. When you move beyond the academics to the practice, it really isn't this rigid. Balancing the approach by considering technical rigor with contextual awareness.
Again the original recipients wouldn't concern themselves with what we are concerned with because they were there, we are not. We are trying to determine their settings because we were not there.

Rose_bud said:

As stated prior exegetical processes isn't merely about understanding literal meaning, but also about uncovering the text's theological and practical implications. Also your assertion that I somehow misunderstand the distinction between homilist and exegete is unfounded. As an ordained minister, I practice both roles, and can attest that the tasks are indeed distinct, but the notion that exegesis ends with literal meaning is overly simplistic.

Click to expand...

My contention isn't that you don't understand the roles, but that you're extending the exegetical process when you begin dealing with practical questions. While the purpose of engaging in exegesis is often not for its own sake, identifying the literal meaning of the text is the sole aim of exegesis. It is, at its heart, an attempt to objectively analyze the text whereas "timeless principles" involve good deal of subjective elements beyond just what is in the text.

Rose_bud said:

I think your critique of stock questions in exegesis overlooks the value of established methodologies that have been refined over time. These questions provide a necessary framework for analysis, and many are designed to illuminate the context with the end goal of discovering meaning. And again I'll point out you appearing to be critiquing one tree amongst the forest. It's a process.

Click to expand...

The problem is that those "established methodologies" are built on anachronistic literary principles and theories originating in the 15th and 16th century. The stock questions that develop tend to be more built on academic curiosity than being derived from the concerns presented in the text.

Rose_bud said:

Starting exegesis with questions like "intended audience" has pedagogical value, as it allows students to observe/explore the settings in the text and can serve as a gateway to the deeper technical analysis. This approach may not be ideal in your view, but it's not necessarily flawed. Again as previously pointed out this becomes less "formulaic" in practice.

Click to expand...

It's a recipe for introducing biases due to misperceptions of the historical situation, at least not without an extremely robust understanding of the historical issues at hand and the dynamics that were in play. Especially since it is likely that the authors weren't as concerned with addressing a specific, limited audience as they were addressing broad issues within the church and using their identified targets as exemplars.

Rose_bud said:

I don't believe I disagreed, you are merely elaborating this point. There were personal and public letters, it was an expensive process, dictation and presentation was supported by an amenuensis.

Click to expand...

To say there were personal letters is rather generous, because such things were vanishingly small due to a general lack of literacy. And the letter carrier did far more than simply support the presentation, as the sessions weren't just an audience listening to a letter being read but more of a Q&A with the letters serving as the backbone of the dialogue. Though for Hebrews, it is likely a sermon that was recorded rather than an actual letter.

Rose_bud said:

You are downplaying the persecution angle. Paul's letters are full of warnings and encouragements to endure hardship and persecution. Unless you think stonings, being sawn in two, temptations and being put to death with the sword, not to mention crucifixtions were nothing to write home about.

Click to expand...

Not exactly, there certainly were hardships and persecutions but they weren't constant nor were they universal in scope. The extent of such things are often exagerated by apologists for effect, but the historical record doesn't support what often persists in the imagination of popular Christianity.

Rose_bud said:

Neglecting the practical implications of exegesis is a poor practice in its own right. When you move beyond the academics to the practice, it really isn't this rigid. Balancing the approach by considering technical rigor with contextual awareness.
Again the original recipients wouldn't concern themselves with what we are concerned with because they were there, we are not. We are trying to determine their settings because we were not there.

Click to expand...

It's not so much the recipients concerns I am worried about, but the concerns of the authors. And my concerns aren't about hypothetical abuses, but what I see as habitual abuses of applying anachronistic ideas onto the text by treating them according to modern principles of literary criticism that aren't reflective of how literature operated in the ancient world, an example of what I am talking about is seen in Augustine's The Confessions. At one point he observed Ambrose silently reading and found it absolutely astonishing because private reading was unheard of.

We have to remember that a number of advancements have revolutionalized how we treat the written word. From the advent of the university to the invention of the printing press and the development of written works like novels and pleasure reading our attitudes towards writing are completely different from how the ancient world related to such things and the questions that we think should be important don't reflect what the authors would have found important.

Xeno.of.athens said:

I've found that keeping charity in how I look at the world really helps. Even when people do things that seem wrong or misguided, I try to remember that they're made in God's image underneath.

Click to expand...

I won't deny the words of reconciliation from anyone, but am also mindful of the Lord's admonishment not to cast the pearls before swine.
I was once one of them.

Xeno.of.athens said:

The Catholic tradition I follow teaches me to see Christ in everyone - even those who might be serving different masters or making poor choices. It doesn't mean excusing bad behaviour, but recognising that people's hearts can be in a better place than their actions sometimes show.

Click to expand...

I no longer share that tradition, knowing that men can only serve one master.
If they are not of us, they are against us.

Xeno.of.athens said:

I've learnt that this charitable approach strengthens my faith. When I can see the good in others, it reminds me of God's mercy towards all of us.
And there is always hope that God in grace will heal the wounds of sin in the wicked.

Click to expand...

There is always that hope.
How people act, especially those I love, has no bearing on my prayers for them.

Xeno.of.athens said:

PS:

But you are merciful to all, for you can do all things, and you overlook people's sins, so that they may repent. For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made, for you would not have made anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.​

Wisdom 11:23-26 NRSV-CE

Click to expand...

It is written..."The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." (Psalm 5:5)

Hoping2 said:

It's a pity, isn't it, that the things about God and His Son that caused me to align myself with Him, have had no effect on most everyone else ?

Click to expand...

I do not know if it is a pity or something else; and whether Yahweh the Creator thinks so or otherwise. The immeasurable, super-exceedingly painful sacrifice of Yahshua willingly leaves those who reject Him without any excuse worldwide, even if they have been deceived by the world church or the devil itself.
Actually, instead of this comment, let us look to Scripture Directly, The Creator's Word, to see what He Says about the continually wicked sinful souls who deny Him, those who constantly and daily reject Him ; those who devise new sin at night on their beds ....... and so on....

Hoping2 said:

I no longer share that tradition, knowing that men can only serve one master.
If they are not of us, they are against us.

Click to expand...

Thanks be to our True Father in heaven for you and all who have been set free !

BobRyan said:

the blood of Christ as the atoning sacrifice

Click to expand...

Yes, ONCE for ALL TIME< as written. Not an abomination of men practiced worldwide every day.

Hoping2 said:

I see no good in anyone who serves anything but God.

Click to expand...

You agree with Yahweh's Word (Scripture): "The flesh profits nothing."

Fervent said:

My contention isn't that you don't understand the roles, but that you're extending the exegetical process when you begin dealing with practical questions. While the purpose of engaging in exegesis is often not for its own sake, identifying the literal meaning of the text is the sole aim of exegesis. It is, at its heart, an attempt to objectively analyze the text whereas "timeless principles" involve good deal of subjective elements beyond just what is in the text.

Click to expand...

I understand your emphasis on objectivity, but your insistence on separating literal meaning from broader implications strikes me as oversimplified compartmentalising - trees not forest. It's precisely this rigidity that I believe overlooks the complexities of the text. Resigning it only to literal studies is indeed very narrow as we know words find its significance in context.

Fervent said:

The problem is that those "established methodologies" are built on anachronistic literary principles and theories originating in the 15th and 16th century. The stock questions that develop tend to be more built on academic curiosity than being derived from the concerns presented in the text.

Click to expand...

Unless we teleport back to the Pauls day this processes have been beneficial to investigating the biblical text. I for one am grateful for curious academics. Exegetical methods may have also undergone refinement over time, this development doesn't undermine the usefulness in determining the author's intended meaning and extracting relevant principles for application.

Fervent said:

It's a recipe for introducing biases due to misperceptions of the historical situation, at least not without an extremely robust understanding of the historical issues at hand and the dynamics that were in play. Especially since it is likely that the authors weren't as concerned with addressing a specific, limited audience as they were addressing broad issues within the church and using their identified targets as exemplars.

Click to expand...

The idea that this approach inevitably leads to disaster assumes a compartmentalized exegetical process, divorced from a thorough understanding of the historical context and a critical awareness of one's own presuppositions and biases. In reality, the exegetical process considers a multitude of factors, of which audience is merely one aspect. I think we went over this before, consider the various audiences in Revelation, would it not be important to identify that the churches were specific.

Fervent said:

To say there were personal letters is rather generous, because such things were vanishingly small due to a general lack of literacy. And the letter carrier did far more than simply support the presentation, as the sessions weren't just an audience listening to a letter being read but more of a Q&A with the letters serving as the backbone of the dialogue.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are elaborating on things I mentioned in earlier posts.

Fervent said:

Though for Hebrews, it is likely a sermon that was recorded rather than an actual letter.

Click to expand...

This is of course a view you are entitled too. I'm of the opinion that it's a letter with the title " To the Hebrews" written in a sermon/homily format. Internal evidence suggesting Jewish Christians as the more plausible audience although the book does not explicitly state this.

Fervent said:

Not exactly, there certainly were hardships and persecutions but they weren't constant nor were they universal in scope. The extent of such things are often exagerated by apologists for effect, but the historical record doesn't support what often persists in the imagination of popular Christianity.

Click to expand...

I wasn't referencing an apologist or historical records when I mentioned, stoning, being sawn in two, etc. I was referencing Hebrews 11:35-38. Unless you think the author of Hebrews was overly imaginative.

Fervent said:

It's not so much the recipients concerns I am worried about, but the concerns of the authors. And my concerns aren't about hypothetical abuses, but what I see as habitual abuses of applying anachronistic ideas onto the text by treating them according to modern principles of literary criticism that aren't reflective of how literature operated in the ancient world, an example of what I am talking about is seen in Augustine's The Confessions. At one point he observed Ambrose silently reading and found it absolutely astonishing because private reading was unheard of.

We have to remember that a number of advancements have revolutionalized how we treat the written word. From the advent of the university to the invention of the printing press and the development of written works like novels and pleasure reading our attitudes towards writing are completely different from how the ancient world related to such things and the questions that we think should be important don't reflect what the authors would have found important.

Click to expand...

It's valid concerns, but the very elements you see as devices that impose modern assumptions. Is the very tools employed to avoid it. Hence I've continually tried to point out, that the exegetical process is not as narrow as you suggest. The sole focus on grammar does not suffice to avoid imposing modern assumptions onto ancient texts. A more balanced approach, that considers all the contexts, genre, and authorial intent, is necessary to uncover the meaning and principles. Notwithstanding the readers awareness of there own presuppositions and biases, their own cultural context etc. Lest we read into the text what is not there. The further we are from the ancient world, the more difficult it is to understand accurately. For example, evident in our reactions to certain concepts in narratives such as Abraham's marriage to his near kin, or Sarah's giving of Hagar.

I agree Scripture was read out loud, but it was also discussed and applied, engaged with, as seen with Jesus elaboration on Isaiah and engagement with others as well as Paul's synagogue discussions in Acts. Again some questions were not important to the original authors ask because they were there, we were not. Giving us more reason to immerse ourselves in that environment utilising the tools we have trying to understand the context as best we can.

Rose_bud said:

I understand your emphasis on objectivity, but your insistence on separating literal meaning from broader implications strikes me as oversimplified compartmentalising - trees not forest. It's precisely this rigidity that I believe overlooks the complexities of the text. Resigning it only to literal studies is indeed very narrow as we know words find its significance in context.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, though the way I see it exegesis is only the start of the interpretive process. I'm a big believer in the 4-fold meaning of the Scriptures and being rigid with exegesis allows such things to be explored responsibly.

Rose_bud said:

Unless we teleport back to the Pauls day this processes have been beneficial to investigating the biblical text. I for one am grateful for curious academics. Exegetical methods may have also undergone refinement over time, this development doesn't undermine the usefullness in deyermining the author's intended meaning and extracting relevant principles for application.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I am a big believer in DA Carson's Biblical theology approach to interpretation, but the issue at hand is the appropriateness of starting with a set of questions to investigate for every Biblical text and the detrimental effect such an approach has through its introduction of artificial concerns.

Rose_bud said:

The idea that this approach inevitably leads to disaster assumes a compartmentalized exegetical process, divorced from a thorough understanding of the historical context and a critical awareness of one's own presuppositions and biases. In reality, the exegetical process considers a multitude of factors, of which audience is merely one aspect. I think we went over this before, consider the various audiences in Revelation, would it not be important to identify that the churches were specific.

Click to expand...

It's not so much inevitably, but increases the likelihood of readings being influenced by a lack of appreciation for the historical picture in its full dynamism. My concern is that beginning with a set of stock questions that aren't derived from the text themselves leads to a sense of pressure to answer such questions simply to have an answer rather than as a means of benefiting the interpretive task.

Rose_bud said:

Yes, you are elaborating on things I mentioned in earlier posts.

Click to expand...

Rose_bud said:

This is of course a view you are entitled too. I'm of the opinion that it's a letter with the title " To the Hebrews" written in a sermon/homily format. Internal evidence suggesting Jewish Christians as the more plausible audience although the book does not explicitly state this.

Click to expand...

One of the challenges is setting a date, which speaks to the audience question in a critical way. The notion of "Jewish Christians" and "Gentile Christians" isn't necessarily within the field of consideration if it is of an early date, as the vast majority of Christians would have been Jewish Christians. So segmenting hte church between "Jewish Christians" and "Gentile Christians" is quite possibly an anachronistic dichotomy built on known developments. That the principal content implies thorough understanding of the Jewish Scriptures is undeniable, but segmenting the potential audience requires far more assumptions than we are justified in making. So the question is, do we benefit in some distinct way by providing an answer, or are we just providing an answer to have an answer?

Rose_bud said:

I wasn't referencing an apologist or historical records when I mentioned, stoning, being sawn in two, etc. I was referencing Hebrews 11:35-38. Unless you think the author of Hebrews was overly imaginative.

Click to expand...

No, my objection isn't about the reality of persecution. It's the popular imagination that it was ubiquitous in the Christian experience and was uniquely Christian. Persecutions were very real, but they were of limited duration and local.

Rose_bud said:

It's valid concerns, but the very elements you see as devices that impose modern assumptions. Is the very tools employed to avoid it. Hence I've continually tried to point out, that the exegetical process is not as narrow as you suggest. The sole focus on grammar does not suffice to avoid imposing modern assumptions onto ancient texts. A more balanced approach, that considers all the contexts, genre, and authorial intent, is necessary to uncover the meaning and principles. Notwithstanding the readers awareness of there own presuppositions and biases, their own cultural context etc. Lest we read into the text what is not there. The further we are from the ancient world, the more difficult it is to understand accurately. For example, evident in our reactions to certain concepts in narratives such as Abraham's marriage to his near kin, or Sarah's giving of Hagar.

Click to expand...

I am entirely focused on the validity of beginning with a set of stock questions to investigate in every text. There is certainly a lot to consider within the process, but there are certain elements involved in systematizing it that lend themselves to anachronistic biases creeping in.

Rose_bud said:

I agree Scripture was read out loud, but it was also discussed and applied, engaged with, as seen with Jesus elaboration on Isaiah and engagement with others as well as Paul's synagogue discussions in Acts. Again some questions were not important to the original authors ask because they were there, we were not. Giving us more reason to immerse ourselves in that environment utilising the tools we have trying to understand the context as best we can.

Click to expand...

It's not just a matter of being read out loud, it's the idea of targetting a specific audience rather than keeping in mind that the audience would be whoever joined the assembly. Especially when we're using categories that may not have fit the period the documents are coming from because the historical divisions hadn't happened yet.