tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post6353553058832945240..comments2023-10-12T14:09:33.965-07:00Comments on The Biblia Hebraica Blog: Religion and Biblical ExegesisDouglas Mangumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-90844034842610380492009-06-20T07:45:23.727-07:002009-06-20T07:45:23.727-07:00I meant: that's what it's all about.I meant: that's what it's all about.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-4064322387798807772009-06-20T00:50:13.796-07:002009-06-20T00:50:13.796-07:00John, I just love the way you use the word Sache. ...John, I just <em>love</em> the way you use the word <em>Sache</em>. That's what it's <em>all</em> you about! Your comment on <em>Biblicalia</em> (Childs+Sache) made my day.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-49885583663898995592009-06-19T10:14:51.911-07:002009-06-19T10:14:51.911-07:00I hope you guys realize that Chris Heard has picke...I hope you guys realize that Chris Heard has picked up on this as well.<br /><br />A great conversation. <br /><br />What I've noticed at SBL is that it is impossible, really, for art historians to be neutral about the art they study. Either they believe it is beautiful and important, just the opposite (Hector Avalos), or some shade of grey in between. <br /><br />And, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, it's no less obvious that the differences in evaluation depend to a large degree on different responses to the Sache of the text which von Rad, it goes without saying, identified correctly.John Hobbinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17011346264727684917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-46424273583483825542009-06-19T06:45:18.046-07:002009-06-19T06:45:18.046-07:00I remember that post, Phil. We actually went back ...I remember that post, Phil. We actually went back and forth on much the same issue then in a series of posts. (See my archive from Oct 08 for posts on Christological interpretation.) My initial post in that exchange is <a href="http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2008/10/christological-interpretation-of-hebrew.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. You've raised some good points here and at your post. I'll respond after I've had some time to process.Douglas Mangumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-35055446439181028992009-06-19T02:02:48.236-07:002009-06-19T02:02:48.236-07:00I actually wrote a post once called Why exegesis n...I actually wrote a post once called <a href="http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-exegesis-needs-dogmatics.html" rel="nofollow">Why exegesis needs dogmatics</a>.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-91150957693335091422009-06-19T00:23:57.998-07:002009-06-19T00:23:57.998-07:00Perhaps the issue I'm trying to bring up can b...Perhaps the issue I'm trying to bring up can be put like this:<br /><br />1) What is the goal of a scientific approach to the Bible?<br /><br /><b>Answer</b>: to understand it according to what it is (i.e. to read it on its own terms).<br /><br />2) What is the best approach to the Bible: "religious" or "theological" (to use your terms from the post).<br /><br /><b>Answer</b>: it depends on the nature of the text, is the Bible itself religious or theological?<br /><br />Lets compare two quotes, one from your post and another by von Rad.<br /><br />Prothero says the following: <em>religious studies scholars <b>study religion</b>. Rather than ruminating on God, practitioners of religious studies explore how other human beings (theologians included) ruminate on sacred things.</em><br /><br /><a href="http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/2009/03/von-rad-was-barthian.html" rel="nofollow">Von Rad's analysis of the Bible</a> is very different. He says the following: <em>Because Israel, in its historical witnesses, did not refer to its own faith but rather to Jahwe himself, in other words, because faith was not the "object," rather the "bearer, mouth" of its witness, the revelation of Jahwe in history in words and deeds becomes the object of a theology of the Old Testament.</em><br /><br />In other words, the Bible is a kerygmatic text, it witnesses to a reality outside of itself, that is its intention and the reason for its being. This is not religious eisegesis, it is a scientific statement about the nature of the text. The fact that a living God is part of the equation doesn't make it less scientific. <br /><br />Thus, on von Rad's analysis, Prothero's basic approach is fundamentally flawed because <em>it doesn't do justice to the nature of the text itself</em>.<br /><br />Is von Rad a theologian or a religious studies scholar?Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-2653054346515533502009-06-18T21:30:04.117-07:002009-06-18T21:30:04.117-07:00The comparison with art and art history is fantast...The comparison with art and art history is fantastic. I'll have to remember that!Ken Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014885672703727636noreply@blogger.com