Sign in or 

|
mgvh |
Latest page update: made by mgvh
, May 18 2011, 8:27 PM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
2 words added 3 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dejopr | Interpetation of scripture | 0 | May 23 2011, 12:41 PM EDT by dejopr | ||
|
Thread started: May 23 2011, 12:41 PM EDT
Watch
I really liked the quote found in chapter 2 page 27.."but he probably does not aim for it to be something called "the", only "an," interpretation." I thought this was a very profound way to look at interpreting scripture. It really opened my thinking about things.
|
|||||
| revmarleen | Reading the Hebrew Scriptures | 0 | May 21 2011, 12:03 PM EDT by revmarleen | ||
|
Thread started: May 21 2011, 12:03 PM EDT
Watch
As I was reading Early Biblical Interpretation, it occured to me how varied reading of the Hebrew Scriptures were and still are. I am friends with a conservative Jewish family and it is always amazing how they can take scripture very seriously as sacred text but also can feel free to be imaginative with what the text does not say. For instance, I remember during a study session at the synagogue once the rabbi mentioned that some have believed that Moses' parents were divorced. He went on to talk about how to in some midrash there was the thought that to avoid having male children who would be killed, many of the Hebrews divorced their wives. The textbook put this into historical prespective for me. We could learn much from this way of looking at scritpure. I have often been upset about the way NT authors used the Hebrew scriptures, but now their use seems right in line with others!
Marleen Griffith-Stull PS Sorry do not have a picture on this computer. I really need to get on the blackboard as well so that I have something done for class and need to finish my Josephus presentation! The picture is really not a priority at this point. |
|||||
| ChristopherLaughlin | I'm not sure where to put this... | 1 | Sep 27 2008, 9:11 AM EDT by mgvh | ||
|
Thread started: Sep 22 2008, 6:31 PM EDT
Watch
Dr. VH, would you post your slick hermeneutical one-liner from class last week for us to see? Something about communities paying close attention to the text.... This is my interpretation - see if I'm on the right track:
Scripture is inspired by God and therefore living, speaking to people of faith at different times and in different places in different ways. This is how things are meshing in my head. The historical-critical approach is very, very helpful, but I'm beginning to see its limitations. Perhaps Scripture should speak for itself - or perhaps we should allow God to speak through it... The authors of the NT believed that Scripture (what we call the "Old Testament") was divinely inspired, and that if there was something the reader didn't understand, the problem was not with the text but with the reader. And perhaps, if Scripture speaks, it can speak through the historical-critical method but not only the historical-critical method. Perhaps Scripture can interpret Scripture, but without "proof-texting." Perhaps, as one wise and learned scholar and person of faith once put it, "we need to loosen our grip on the text." In this way, we can acknowledge that what we call the Old Testament spoke to the authors of the New Testament differently than it spoke to its original authors, both of which are different than the way it speaks to us... I think this might also be helpful for preaching, in that we are not limited to only one text or any time limit or too narrow a hermeneutical lens (though I remind you all of the promise that we'll make at our ordinations...). A question: Are there now parts that no longer speak? How do we determine which parts speak and which parts do not? This is a hermeneutic in progress - I think I'm growing from this process, and perhaps you will, too... please join the conversation! Lectio Divina also helps... |
|||||