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

Rose_bud · Jul 9, 2025

Fervent said:
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.

I think we belabored this point. We both agree exegesis is beneficial as a starting point and in its broader implications all of these meanings are explored.

Fervent said:
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.

I understand your concern about introducing artificial concerns, but a set of questions can provide a useful starting point, precisely because we were not there. Can I ask you to give an example of this detriment, because I believe whatever detriment you perceive can happen may be addressed through the broader exegetical processes or integration of multiple approaches in a way that honors the complexity of the text, which I was advocating for.

Fervent said:
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.

Sure, but again its not as compartmentalized as you suggest. In practice these questions are often asked not to be the be all and end all of the study, a helpful framework not the end goal. Its approaching the text humbly, critically and equally flexible , recognizing that the questions serve the text, not the other way around. The text guides the inquiry but benefits from the structure questions provide.

Fervent said:
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?

Not at all, when we weigh the internal and external evidence, the internal clues seem to point toward a pre-70 AD date for Hebrews. The author's emphasis on the High Priest and Temple sacrifices as shadows suggests that these practices were still very much alive for the original audience, and to which they were tempted to return to. This historical context gives us a window into their world and the author's warnings and exhortation take on a sense of urgency. The letter's themes of Christ's supremacy and sufficiency continue to resonate with us today, even if we're Gentile and centuries removed. When we understand the historical context, we tap into the richness of the letter's message and see how it applies to our lives in new ways.

When we consider the struggles of the early Christians, their fears and doubts and perseverance, we're drawn into a story that's both ancient and timeless. We see how God's faithfulness played out in their lives and we're reminded that indeed He is still faithful today. The fact that they had such a deep history with God, rooted in the Jewish tradition, that he progressively revealed throughout their history is a powerful reminder of the heritage that underpins our faith. And it's a great encouragement to us to hold onto hope and run the race with endurance. For HE is faithful. Hallelujah!!! :clap:

Fervent said:
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.

I don't think I indicated that they were in a constant state of persecution. God does answer prayers for relief

Fervent said:
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.

And I do understand, but their are also means to mitigate with more holistic intergrated approaches.

Fervent said:
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.

Ofcourse, identifying the specific audience helps us immerse ourselves in the original context, given we were not there. But integrated approaches can also account for presuppositions and bias so we minimize the effect of reading modern conventions into the text.

Fervent · Jul 9, 2025

Rose_bud said:
I think we belabored this point. We both agree exegesis is beneficial as a starting point and in its broader implications all of these meanings are explored.

I suppose so.

Rose_bud said:
I understand your concern about introducing artificial concerns, but a set of questions can provide a useful starting point, precisely because we were not there. Can I ask you to give an example of this detriment, because I believe whatever detriment you perceive can happen may be addressed through the broader exegetical processes or integration of multiple approaches in a way that honors the complexity of the text, which I was advocating for.

The detrimental effect I perceive is unnecessarily providing a sense of legitimacy to individuals who engage with these kinds of questions for the sake of carving out exemptions. When we present notions about the original audience it is quite easy to give the perception that the author's intended to limit their message to a select group and not address the church as a whole. There's also the reality that when there is an intended audience it can change within the text, such as in Romans where there are portions addressed to the Gentiles and the Jews within the congregation.

Rose_bud said:
Sure, but again its not as compartmentalized as you suggest. In practice these questions are often asked not to be the be all and end all of the study, a helpful framework not the end goal. Its approaching the text humbly, critically and equally flexible , recognizing that the questions serve the text, not the other way around. The text guides the inquiry but benefits from the structure questions provide.

My issue isn't that it's compartmentalized, but that these questions are taken as a universal starting point. My contention is simply that we are better served beginning with the technical aspects of the text, and seeing what questions linger in the background. Sometimes we will find that the same questions are of interest, but not every text requires us to answer such things.

Rose_bud said:
Not at all, when we weigh the internal and external evidence, the internal clues seem to point toward a pre-70 AD date for Hebrews. The author's emphasis on the High Priest and Temple sacrifices as shadows suggests that these practices were still very much alive for the original audience, and to which they were tempted to return to. This historical context gives us a window into their world and the author's warnings and exhortation take on a sense of urgency. The letter's themes of Christ's supremacy and sufficiency continue to resonate with us today, even if we're Gentile and centuries removed. When we understand the historical context, we tap into the richness of the letter's message and see how it applies to our lives in new ways.

Pre-70, certainly, but I was thinking more about whether or not it was pre-49-50 or post, which more or less is a point where the church went from being a principally Jewish movement to shifting towards Gentiles

Rose_bud said:
When we consider the struggles of the early Christians, their fears and doubts and perseverance, we're drawn into a story that's both ancient and timeless. We see how God's faithfulness played out in their lives and we're reminded that indeed He is still faithful today. The fact that they had such a deep history with God, rooted in the Jewish tradition, that he progressively revealed throughout their history is a powerful reminder of the heritage that underpins our faith. And it's a great encouragement to us to hold onto hope and run the race with endurance. For HE is faithful. Hallelujah!!!

Yes, Hallelujah.

Rose_bud said:
I don't think I indicated that they were in a constant state of persecution. God does answer prayers for relief

That was more of a statement about general perceptions and popular presentations.

Rose_bud said:
And I do understand, but their are also means to mitigate with more holistic intergrated approaches.

Yeah, but in my experience these sorts of issues don't occur to most people naturally such that they find widespread counter.

Rose_bud said:
Ofcourse, identifying the specific audience helps us immerse ourselves in the original context, given we were not there. But integrated approaches can also account for presuppositions and bias so we minimize the effect of reading modern conventions into the text.

If we're able to accurately do so, but when we're basically playing guess work as we are with Hebrews it may help our imaginations but it doesn't improve our interpretations.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 9, 2025

I do not begin with a book—I begin with a voice. The Word of God is first and foremost the living utterance of the Father, fully revealed in the person of Christ, the eternal Verbum (cf. Dei Verbum §2). This spoken revelation, entrusted to the Apostles, is transmitted in two modes: Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (DV §9).

Thus, when I exegete the Scriptures, I do so not as if they were the whole of revelation, but as the written witness to the Word proclaimed, preserved, and interpreted within the Church. Scripture is “the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit” (DV §9), but it is not self-interpreting.

D A Carson’s precision in textual analysis is commendable. Yet his method, grounded in sola scriptura, risks mistaking the written record for the living voice. The Word precedes the text and transcends it. Without Tradition and Magisterium, exegesis becomes archaeology rather than communion.

I read Scripture, then, not as an isolated Christian, but as a listener within the Church, where the Word still speaks.

DV 2. In His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will (see Eph. 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph. 2:18; 2 Peter 1:4). Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (see Col. 1;15, 1 Tim. 1:17) out of the abundance of His love speaks to men as friends (see Ex. 33:11; John 15:14-15) and lives among them (see Bar. 3:38), so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself. This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation. (2)

DV 9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

BobRyan · Jul 9, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
Without Tradition and Magisterium, exegesis becomes archaeology rather than communion.

That idea appears to fail in Acts 17:11

there we see both tradition and Magisterium of the non-Christian Jewish synagogues in Acts 17 - had already condemned the teaching of the Christians and declared both Christ and Paul to be heretical.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul - were SO" -- does not allow either their existing magisterium or their existing traditions to veto Christ's teaching or Paul's teaching when tested sola-scriptura as we see them doing in Acts 17;11

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 9, 2025

BobRyan said:
That idea appears to fail in Acts 17:11

Appearances can be deceiving, besides the Bereans were Jews in that passage and were "more commendable" than the rather unpleasant Thessalonian Jews. Their conduct is commended in contrast to the hostility in Thessalonica, not canonised as a universal norm.

Fervent · Jul 9, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
Without Tradition and Magisterium, exegesis becomes archaeology rather than communion.

Tradition and Scripture are inseparable, but I suspect we understand the former term markedly differently. Magisterium is nothing more than reified usurpation of power through what has functioned in history as markedly secular political offices rather than the kind of servant leadership Jesus' ministry of the towel presents. If it don't smell like Christ, it's probably not of Christ.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 9, 2025

Fervent said:
Tradition and Scripture are inseparable, but I suspect we understand the former term markedly differently. Magisterium is nothing more than reified usurpation of power through what has functioned in history as markedly secular political offices rather than the kind of servant leadership Jesus' ministry of the towel presents. If it don't smell like Christ, it's probably not of Christ.

You've oversimplified history and understated the value of a magisterial authority when a raging debate about morals and/or theology is threatening the religious order of entire communities.

Fervent · Jul 9, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
You've oversimplified history and understated the value of a magisterial authority when a raging debate about morals and/or theology is threatening the religious order of entire communities

I am simply putting my perspective out there, magisterial authority can at times be helpful but I think we're long past being able to put that cat back in the box. More often, the power granted to magisterial authorities tends towards abuse rather than being beneficial if it isn't curbed in some manner. You may see my pessimistic view of the church as an oversimplification, but the political gamesmanship and lust for political power that church offices have been plagued with is undeniable.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 9, 2025

Fervent said:
I am simply putting my perspective out there, magisterial authority can at times be helpful but I think we're long past being able to put that cat back in the box. More often, the power granted to magisterial authorities tends towards abuse rather than being beneficial if it isn't curbed in some manner. You may see my pessimistic view of the church as an oversimplification, but the political gamesmanship and lust for political power that church offices have been plagued with is undeniable.

History has its scars, no doubt. But for Catholics, magisterial authority isn’t about unchecked power; it’s about safeguarding truth handed down through the ages. Yes, human failings have marred the Church, but that doesn’t undo the grace at work through her. Authority rightly ordered isn’t a cage—it’s a guard hand-rail on a narrow and difficult path.

Hoping2 · Jul 9, 2025

Aaron112 said:
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....

He says this..."The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." (Psalm 55)

Fervent · Jul 9, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
History has its scars, no doubt. But for Catholics, magisterial authority isn’t about unchecked power; it’s about safeguarding truth handed down through the ages.

Sure, but in practice it has functioned more to reify developing traditions rather than preserving historic ones.

Xeno.of.athens said:
Yes, human failings have marred the Church,

That's an understatement.

Xeno.of.athens said:
but that doesn’t undo the grace at work through her.

No, though it does raise serious questions about the embedded theories of authority.

Xeno.of.athens said:
Authority rightly ordered isn’t a cage—it’s a guard hand-rail on a narrow and difficult path.

I would hardly qualify the political squabbling that for a long time ensnared the church "authority rightly ordered." Corrective steps have been taken in the last 150 years, but that doesn't undo the damage done when the church was an arbiter of secular authority rather than just religious authority.

Hoping2 · Jul 9, 2025

Aaron112 said:
You agree with Yahweh's Word (Scripture): "The flesh profits nothing."

I am glad Jesus made the way crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts, (Gal 5:24), so we can now walk in and after the Spirit.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 9, 2025

Fervent said:
Sure, but in practice it has functioned more to reify developing traditions rather than preserving historic ones.

That's an understatement.

No, though it does raise serious questions about the embedded theories of authority.

I would hardly qualify the political squabbling that for a long time ensnared the church "authority rightly ordered." Corrective steps have been taken in the last 150 years, but that doesn't undo the damage done when the church was an arbiter of secular authority rather than just religious authority.

Best to let this go in this thread and turn back to the original post's themes.

Rose_bud · Jul 10, 2025

Fervent said:
The detrimental effect I perceive is unnecessarily providing a sense of legitimacy to individuals who engage with these kinds of questions for the sake of carving out exemptions. When we present notions about the original audience it is quite easy to give the perception that the author's intended to limit their message to a select group and not address the church as a whole. There's also the reality that when there is an intended audience it can change within the text, such as in Romans where there are portions addressed to the Gentiles and the Jews within the congregation.

And that's precisely where a more integrated approach proves beneficial – by engaging with the text in its entire context, we can avoid the kind of compartmentalized thinking that might lead to exemptions or misapplications. Paul's argument in Romans unfolds in a way that acknowledges the distinctives of Jew and Gentile, as God's revelation to these groups were distinct. Yet as we follow Paul's argument he ultimately arrives at our shared need for faith in Jesus and our universal guilt. But to gloss over these distinctions is being dishonest with the text. Instead, acknowledge the initial distinction and let the argument unfold as it does in all its complexity.

Fervent said:
My issue isn't that it's compartmentalized, but that these questions are taken as a universal starting point. My contention is simply that we are better served beginning with the technical aspects of the text, and seeing what questions linger in the background. Sometimes we will find that the same questions are of interest, but not every text requires us to answer such things.

Not all exegetical approaches starts with the same "questions" . Certain genre would not start with for example audience, a narrative exegesis usually starts with plot. A Psalm would not start with a plot, or even an "audience".
But again their is value in starting in a certain framework (we discussed this).

Fervent said:
Pre-70, certainly, but I was thinking more about whether or not it was pre-49-50 or post, which more or less is a point where the church went from being a principally Jewish movement to shifting towards Gentiles

Possibly post??, the internal evidence suggests that Timothy was imprisoned and now released. Maybe long after Paul's 2nd missionary journey, where he meet Timothy in Lystra, which scholars indicate was 49-52AD.

Fervent said:
That was more of a statement about general perceptions and popular presentations.

Noted

Fervent said:
Yeah, but in my experience these sorts of issues don't occur to most people naturally such that they find widespread counter.

I suggest maybe most people should join this platforms to gain, weigh alternative perspectives and engage with thoughtful discussions. :oldthumbsup:

Speaking of, I must thank and appreciate you for some fruitful insights and thoughtful engagement.

Fervent said:
If we're able to accurately do so, but when we're basically playing guess work as we are with Hebrews it may help our imaginations but it doesn't improve our interpretations.

Certainly, but the term guesswork implies that we haven't engaged with technical rigor, humble commitment and spirit inspired reasoning. Which is counter intuitive to the process. Many times we are not looking for accuracy but rather a process that gets us to the best intended meaning of the text from which to draw timeless principles that becomes wisdom for application to inform and guide our lives.

BobRyan · Jul 10, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:

Without Tradition and Magisterium, exegesis becomes archaeology rather than communion.

BobRyan said:
That idea appears to fail in Acts 17:11

there we see both tradition and Magisterium of the non-Christian Jewish synagogues in Acts 17 - had already condemned the teaching of the Christians and declared both Christ and Paul to be heretical.

BobRyan said:
"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul - were SO" -- does not allow either their existing magisterium or their existing traditions to veto Christ's teaching or Paul's teaching when tested sola-scriptura as we see them doing in Acts 17;11

Now lets see if response to the facts pointed out in using that text -- need to be completely ignored to get around them....

Xeno.of.athens said:
Appearances can be deceiving

proof by cliche is not as compelling as you may have at first imagined.

Xeno.of.athens said:
the Bereans were Jews in that passage and were "more commendable"

1. The were Jews and gentiles as the context shows.
2. They were most certainly in a position where their Jewish magisterium and tradition dictated that they reject both Christ and Paul - which is "the point" that proves that getting to the correct conclusion did not require a blind adherence to magesterium and tradition.

Xeno.of.athens said:
than the rather unpleasant Thessalonian Jews. Their conduct is commended in contrast to the hostility in Thessalonica,

In fact the text points to their "method" in getting to the right conclusion DESPITE their magesterium and tradition.

Which is the point.

The very method the text approves - is the one you are claiming to reject.

============= since you are apparently not reading Acts 17

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out

In Acts 13 gentiles are in the Synagogue as in Acts 14, and 17 and 18:4 etc

Fervent · Jul 10, 2025

Rose_bud said:
And that's precisely where a more integrated approach proves beneficial – by engaging with the text in its entire context, we can avoid the kind of compartmentalized thinking that might lead to exemptions or misapplications. Paul's argument in Romans unfolds in a way that acknowledges the distinctives of Jew and Gentile, as God's revelation to these groups were distinct. Yet as we follow Paul's argument he ultimately arrives at our shared need for faith in Jesus and our universal guilt. But to gloss over these distinctions is being dishonest with the text. Instead, acknowledge the initial distinction and let the argument unfold as it does in all its complexity.

I suppose my contention isn't with your stated approach, but more of how I see the presentation in commentaries and exegetical textbooks lending to a formulaic understanding as if interpretation is just about getting the formula right. One of the most enlightening books for me on the book of Romans was a book called Reading Romans Backwards and in a lot of ways that book indirectly opened my eyes to how easy it is to get caught up in our own presuppositions if we approach the interpretative task too mechanically.

Rose_bud said:
Not all exegetical approaches starts with the same "questions" . Certain genre would not start with for example audience, a narrative exegesis usually starts with plot. A Psalm would not start with a plot, or even an "audience".
But again their is value in starting in a certain framework (we discussed this).

Audience can be more important for narrative than it is for didactic literature, especially since understanding the audience exposes what sorts of tropes and common agreements exist in the narrative. So even holding that genre dictates what questions to ask prior to engagement with the text can lead to imposed understandings.

Rose_bud said:
Possibly post??, the internal evidence suggests that Timothy was imprisoned and now released. Maybe long after Paul's 2nd missionary journey, where he meet Timothy in Lystra, which scholars indicate was 49-52AD.

Possibly, but it's important to the question of audience because if it was pre then there's no reason to expect that there was any consciousness of a Gentile Christian at all.

Rose_bud said:
Noted

I suggest maybe most people should join this platforms to gain, weigh alternative perspectives and engage with thoughtful discussions. Speaking of, I must thank and appreciate you for some fruitful insights and thoughtful engagement.

Yes, though even then people seem intent on arguing rather than engaging in discussion that edifies both parties. I also must thank you for the same, you've been a delight and provided some wonderful pushback that has challenged me.

Rose_bud said:
Certainly, but the term guesswork implies that we haven't engaged with technical rigor, humble commitment and spirit inspired reasoning. Which is counter intuitive to the process. Many times we are not looking for accuracy but rather a process that gets us to the best intended meaning of the text from which to draw timeless principles that becomes wisdom for application to inform and guide our lives.

Perhaps that is a bit of an unfair characterization, but technical rigor can only take us so far in reconstructing history and we only have so much extant documentation so a lot of it boils down to at least partially speculative arguments. Though at the very least, commitment to an exegetical process is a major improvement on those who insist that their reading of the English is the "plain" meaning of Scripture.

Rose_bud · Friday at 11:39 AM

Fervent said:
I suppose my contention isn't with your stated approach, but more of how I see the presentation in commentaries and exegetical textbooks lending to a formulaic understanding as if interpretation is just about getting the formula right.

I can see how that is especially given the value in pedagogical contexts. But I also prefer to engage with commentaries after forming my own thoughts, as it enables a more meaningful and critical interaction. It allows me to evaluate others insights more discerningly, and to appreciate where our perspectives converge and diverge and why.

Fervent said:
One of the most enlightening books for me on the book of Romans was a book called Reading Romans Backwards and in a lot of ways that book indirectly opened my eyes to how easy it is to get caught up in our own presuppositions if we approach the interpretative task too mechanically.

I haven't read, this one by Scott McKnight, and will add to the list. But looking at the preview it seems he prefers reading the book from the application prior to the more doctrinal passages. An interesting approach.

Presuppositions can be helpful, but yes important to be aware of them, as well as our biases.

Fervent said:
Audience can be more important for narrative than it is for didactic literature, especially since understanding the audience exposes what sorts of tropes and common agreements exist in the narrative. So even holding that genre dictates what questions to ask prior to engagement with the text can lead to imposed understandings.

I was thinking more the OT narratives in the general sense and, that the original audience is known-Israel, their stories, their history. I understand your concern about beginning with genre and reading it in, but I think knowing the genre can equally help to uncover the intended meaning and avoid misinterpretation. More than anything it's a lot more easier to identify as a whole and on first inspection.

Fervent said:
Possibly, but it's important to the question of audience because if it was pre then there's no reason to expect that there was any consciousness of a Gentile Christian at all.

Yes, that does support that post is more plausible.

Fervent said:
Yes, though even then people seem intent on arguing rather than engaging in discussion that edifies both parties.

There is always hope. :prayer:

Fervent said:
Perhaps that is a bit of an unfair characterization, but technical rigor can only take us so far in reconstructing history and we only have so much extant documentation so a lot of it boils down to at least partially speculative arguments. Though at the very least, commitment to an exegetical process is a major improvement on those who insist that their reading of the English is the "plain" meaning of Scripture.

Agreed.

Fervent · Friday at 12:53 PM

Rose_bud said:
I can see how that is especially given the value in pedagogical contexts. But I also prefer to engage with commentaries after forming my own thoughts, as it enables a more meaningful and critical interaction. It allows me to evaluate others insights more discerningly, and to appreciate where our perspectives converge and diverge and why.

You seem to be a more thoughtful individual than a lot of others, so I don't suspect you'd be susceptible to the kind of thinking that my concern focuses on. But when almost every commentary begins with the same introductory questions it is easy to get the impression that those introductory questions are more or less obligatory for exegetical work.

Rose_bud said:
I haven't read, this one by Scott McKnight, and will add to the list. But looking at the preview it seems he prefers reading the book from the application prior to the more doctrinal passages. An interesting approach.

His approach is literally to start at the end of Romans to identify the pastoral context that Paul was working in, and then see how that sheds light on the previous material. IMO it recovers an important thing that is missing from most exegetical treatments of Romans, since it leads to a resistance of the urge to treat it as a systematic theology and instead treats it as a pastoral letter.

Rose_bud said:
Presuppositions can be helpful, but yes important to be aware of them, as well as our biases.

To an extent, we can't avoid them. But responsible engagement requires we be aware of them to whatever extent we are able.

Rose_bud said:
I was thinking more the OT narratives in the general sense and, that the original audience is known-Israel, their stories, their history. I understand your concern about beginning with genre and reading it in, but I think knowing the genre can equally help to uncover the intended meaning and avoid misinterpretation. More than anything it's a lot more easier to identify as a whole and on first inspection.

Even knowing Israel was the original auddience, their history spans a long period and cultural shifts happened. And there are also issues of the evidence that it originated as oral traditions before being codified. As well as the possibility of imposing our own literary tropes from taking ancient literature to be closer kin to literary types we have today. I say this not to criticize approaching the text through genre per se, but to highlight that anachronistic readings are always knocking at our door.

Rose_bud said:
Yes, that does support that post is more plausible.

Rose_bud said:
There is always hope.

Agreed.

I appreciate you for your willingness to engage with me respectfully, and I hope I'm not coming across as overly pessimistic. My position is more that we need to be constantly reflecting on what might be distorting our understanding, especially how we might be imposing modern ideas on the texts. And when I say modern, I mean any theological ideas that have developed over Christian history with my tentative point of divergence being the 5th century with the shift from Greek to Latin in the Western church.

Rose_bud · Friday at 11:35 PM

Fervent said:
You seem to be a more thoughtful individual than a lot of others, so I don't suspect you'd be susceptible to the kind of thinking that my concern focuses on.

Thank you, you too.

Fervent said:
But when almost every commentary begins with the same introductory questions it is easy to get the impression that those introductory questions are more or less obligatory for exegetical work.

And maybe this is your presupposition

Fervent said:
His approach is literally to start at the end of Romans to identify the pastoral context that Paul was working in, and then see how that sheds light on the previous material. IMO it recovers an important thing that is missing from most exegetical treatments of Romans, since it leads to a resistance of the urge to treat it as a systematic theology and instead treats it as a pastoral letter.

Now I'm even more intrigued.

Fervent said:
To an extent, we can't avoid them. But responsible engagement requires we be aware of them to whatever extent we are able.

Yes, as a woman from a marginalized background, raised in a Pentecostal Christian environment (the list could go on). I naturally bring this perspective to my reading of passages. In the past I found myself resonating and drawn to others who share similar experiences and viewpoints. (This to a certain extent makes me bias). So to ensure a more balanced understanding, I try to make a conscious effort to engage with material that come from a different perspective – which, admittedly, are more abundant (especially the male perspective). While my lens brings a unique perspective, I recognize that it's not the only valid one, just as everyone else's perspective is shaped by their own experiences.

Fervent said:
Even knowing Israel was the original auddience, their history spans a long period and cultural shifts happened. And there are also issues of the evidence that it originated as oral traditions before being codified. As well as the possibility of imposing our own literary tropes from taking ancient literature to be closer kin to literary types we have today. I say this not to criticize approaching the text through genre per se, but to highlight that anachronistic readings are always knocking at our door.

Yes, but even oral traditions was in a context that we do not have the full picture of. And cultural shifts and oral traditions do complicate interpretation, and anachronistic readings are always risk. That's why I think a variety of approaches can help us better understand the text and avoid those pitfalls. Which is why I mentioned in the earlier post, a variety of approaches that will lead to the end goal of wisdom for application. Especially because we are a modern audience trying to immerse ourselves in an ancient context to determine its value in our modern world.

Fervent said:
I appreciate you for your willingness to engage with me respectfully, and I hope I'm not coming across as overly pessimistic. My position is more that we need to be constantly reflecting on what might be distorting our understanding, especially how we might be imposing modern ideas on the texts. And when I say modern, I mean any theological ideas that have developed over Christian history with my tentative point of divergence being the 5th century with the shift from Greek to Latin in the Western church.

I appreciate your emphasis on the need for ongoing reflection, and I think it's essential to acknowledge the potential for distortion in our understanding. And I hope I'm not coming across as overly optimistic

, but I'm suggesting that employing various approaches and hermenutical approaches could can help navigate these complexities. So as not to rely on one way of doing things, where it becomes the ivory tower of all things theological. Also the notion of being cognisant of presuppositions and biases can lend itself to minimising the risks of reading into. Contextualising Gods word is not new, from oral to written is a form of contextual change, Hebrew to Greek, into any language is a form of contextualising. (as they say things get lost in translation), but as long as the essence of it is not. God has revealed himself in context. If you will God incarnate is in a sense a divine contextual change. Out of curiosity have you read theology books that did not originate in the West (I'm talking more recent material)

Fervent · Saturday at 12:07 AM

Rose_bud said:
Yes, as a woman from a marginalized background, raised in a Pentecostal Christian environment (the list could go on). I naturally bring this perspective to my reading of passages. In the past I found myself resonating and drawn to others who share similar experiences and viewpoints. (This to a certain extent makes me bias). So to ensure a more balanced understanding, I try to make a conscious effort to engage with material that come from a different perspective – which, admittedly, are more abundant (especially the male perspective). While my lens brings a unique perspective, I recognize that it's not the only valid one, just as everyone else's perspective is shaped by their own experiences.

Yes, and perhaps my primary challenge is that if I want to escape a lot of the things central to my own perspective I need to seek out alternatives, so I perceive the hegemony of academic theology more of a threat to my objectivity than someone who is naturally an outsider.

Rose_bud said:
Yes, but even oral traditions was in a context that we do not have the full picture of. And cultural shifts and oral traditions do complicate interpretation, and anachronistic readings are always risk. That's why I think a variety of approaches can help us better understand the text and avoid those pitfalls. Which is why I mentioned in the earlier post, a variety of approaches that will lead to the end goal of wisdom for application. Especially because we are a modern audience trying to immerse ourselves in an ancient context to determine its value in our modern world.

Diversity of approaches are probably a decent way to combat a lot of what I am talking about.

Rose_bud said:
I appreciate your emphasis on the need for ongoing reflection, and I think it's essential to acknowledge the potential for distortion in our understanding. And I hope I'm not coming across as overly optimistic, but I'm suggesting that employing various approaches and hermenutical approaches could can help navigate these complexities. So as not to rely on one way of doing things, where it becomes the ivory tower of all things theological. Also the notion of being cognisant of presuppositions and biases can lend itself to minimising the risks of reading into. Contextualising Gods word is not new, from oral to written is a form of contextual change, Hebrew to Greek, into any language is a form of contextualising. (as they say things get lost in translation), but as long as the essence of it is not. God has revealed himself in context. If you will God incarnate is in a sense a divine contextual change. Out of curiosity have you read theology books that did not originate in the West (I'm talking more recent material)

I 've read The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware and Encountering the Mystery by Bartholomew I. Though most of my connection with non-western perspectives is from surveys like Light from the Christian East by James R. Payton Jr. and Scripture in Tradition by John Breck. I tend to prefer reading ancient works rather than modern ones when it comes to theology...one of which got me in trouble with God.

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

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Junior Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Well-Known Member

Similar threads