Talk:Heb 6:16-20

"Paul" or "the writer"?

Hi Steven, First, thanks for the interesting lexical notes. On this one, I think I get it but am not entirely sure. I think part of the problem is that I am not sure where the word "oath" would normally fall in Greek syntax. I am going to try rewriting it a little to make it say what I think you are saying. Obviously this is a bit dangerous since, as I say, I'm not sure I understand the point here. \Could you please check my revision and re-revise if needed? thanks, --Matthew Faulconer 08:12, 7 Mar 2006 (UTC) PS also by using Paul as the subject of the sentence I'm not trying to make any claims about intentionality nor am I trying to stake out any position relative to authorship. I simply find this an easy way to discuss what actually happens in the text without always being forced into the passive voice.

Matthew, I think it's conventional to say "the writer" in commentaries for the reasons you cited. Perhaps this implicitly gives too strong a weight to the "Paul probably isn't the author" side of the argument, but I think it's more appropriate b/c there seems to be large enough scholarly consituency that doesn't believe Paul was the author to warrant it. However, I just looked this up in the the Bible Dictionary where, although it mentions that the authorship is disputed, discusses the letter as though Paul wrote it. I guess following the Bible Dictionary convention would seem a logical policy on matters like this, in which case saying Paul here would be more appropriate. --RobertC 23:37, 7 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to say "the writer." It can make a potentially huge difference if you assume, for example, that that author of Romans and the author of Hebrews are the same person.--Nathan Oman 00:56, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I feel like "the writer" is a bit stilted as if we are trying to be too careful about a point that doesn't really matter that much. Maybe this is just another way of saying that I don't understand the significance of the difference Nathan points to in whether we assume that Roman and Hebrews were written by the same person or different people. Maybe this isn't a parallel example, but here's how I think about it: I don't know if The Odyssey was written by Homer, and I don't know if the Iliad was written by Homer, I don't know if both were written by the same person, and I don't know if maybe there wasn't any single writer at all but rather that both texts are compilations of oral traditions to which many people contributed to in some way. But regardless, I don't really see why it matters that much to understanding either of these two book. To me it seems convenient to talk about Homer rather than say the writer or "either the writer, if there is a single writer, or the set of people who orally participated in composing this work" when we talk about these books.

That said, a) it looks like I am outnumbered, and b) I don't mind using the writer if other people think that is better but I thought I would throw out my reasoning first. If others think the writer is better, I'm happy to go along with that so we can spend our time instead discussing what the text means. --Matthew Faulconer 01:19, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nate and Robert, and believe that saying "the writer" or "the author", at least in Hebrews, will avoid a perceived lack of scholastic credibility. But this is probably only the tip of the iceberg of critical issues that might arise on this wiki. From what I have observed, "Feast upon the Word" appears to be primarily devotional in nature (indeed, the site name so positions it). For this reason I believe it would be distracting to devote space to disputes regarding textual authorship, especially concerning the Documentary Hypothesis and Deutero/Trito Isaiah. These issues are best addressed in other forums. --Steven Barton 08:24, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Let's use "the writer" or "the author." --Matthew Faulconer 13:25, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Tone of site: scholarly or devotional?

I think it's worth discussing the aims, focus and scope of this site a little more, esp. in light of the scholarly vs. devotional comment by Steven (we can always move the discussion to a more appropriate page, right?). I found this article entitled Bible Scholarship by Stephen Robinson which I think is in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Here's one excerpt that troubles me:

Latter-day Saints insist on objective hermeneutics, that is, they maintain that the biblical text has a specific, objective meaning and that the intent of the original author is both important and largely recoverable. For this reason, LDS scholars, like other conservatives, have tended toward the more objective tools of Bible scholarship, such as linguistics, history, and archaeology—recognizing that these tools themselves have to be evaluated critically—and have generally avoided the more subjective methods of literary criticism.

I don't disagree that LDS scholars have tended to avoid literary criticism, but I don't understand why. (But then, I don't think I fully understand what is meant by literary criticism either—how is it different than "a close reading of what the text itself is saying"?) It seems to me that the "objective tools" that Robinson mentions are much more removed from the actual text of the scriptures than literary criticism is. So when Robinson says "Latter-day Saints insist on objective hermeneutics" I, as a Latter-day Saint, take issue. When I hear admonitions to study the scriptures from Mormon church leaders, I take it to mean studying the text of the scriptures, not "linguistics, history, and archaeology".

The one concern I do understand about literary criticism is that there may be more of a temptation to say "well, these are just stories that are meant to teach lessons, they didn't really take place" which could eventually lead to a "Christ and the atonement are nice literary conceptions, but are not to be taken as a literal person and event"—a view clearly counter to established Church teachings. Is this the main concern regarding a literary approach?

To me, "Feast Upon the Word" connotes a careful reading of the actual text of the scriptures. I think Steven is correct that there is also a devotional undertone to the name, though I think the undertone/connotation is more about having a reverence for the text of the scriptures that a pure scholarly approach does not presuppose. That is, the phrase "feast upon the word" is found in the scriptures as, presumably, an admonition to read the scriptures not only voraciously, eagerly and with zeal but, I would add, carefully, thoughtfully and with great attention to detail. After all, a successful feast is "elaborately prepared" and, lest we be gluttons of the scriptures, I think this suggests that we should savor each word that is written, pondering all possible flavors and meanings, giving careful consideration to the context, construction, and presentation of each morsel. Something that, to me, seems very consistent with a literary approach.

I agree that a focus on authorship issues is a bit tangential to this notion of feasting upon the word. Discussing authorship itself could be a distraction from studying the text itself. However, inasmuch as authorship issues have bearing on the meaning of the text, I think they are relevant. But "linguistics, history, and archaeology" seem even more tangential and distracting to the text of the scriptures....

Sorry to get carried away here, end of diatribe. (...for now; I didn't even start into my problem with Robinson's claim that "the biblical text has a specific, objective meaning and that the intent of the original author is both important and largely recoverable", which I think is a very limiting way to read scripture.)

--RobertC 13:42, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I agree that Robinson's observation does present a limiting way to read scripture. However, I think he is characterizing LDS attitudes toward biblical scholarship, and I think he is largely correct in his perception, unfortunately. Overall, his article seems a good summary of LDS scriptural attitudes and might provide a good resource for content guidelines here at Feast Upon the Word. Generally, the content provided thusfar has set the tone for what should follow. I think the site is off to a great start. --Steven Barton 18:05, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Good point, the quote doesn't bother me if he's describing not proscribing. By the way, I stumbled on your new blog (saw a link from BCC I think it was). Good luck with that, I'll be anxious to follow your posts, and I hope you don't mind if I try to add links here to some of your posts there. --RobertC 01:34, 9 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Abram's Covenant

Nathan, There may be a minor innacuracy in your parenthetical text. The closest parallel to the covenant formula that you describe is in Jer 34:12-22. Here the people "cut the calf" and "pass between the parts" (vs. 18). In the covenant of Abram that you cite (Gen 15), however, it appears that it was God who "passed between those pieces" (vs. 17), not Abram. --Steven Barton 08:16, 9 Mar 2006 (UTC)