Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Hi Soren,
> Hi Bruce, Charles and Dave
> 
> "Hold the wedding" as Kinky Friedman would say. Letting oneself be insulted
> is the second worst thing (next to being insulting) for keeping a civil
> discussion going.
> 
> And scholarship is precisely that: A discussion. As soon as it stops being a
> two-way communication, it stops being scholarship. Therefore, if somebody
> says that a certain interpretation of the Hebrew Bible is "proven" because
> the New Testament or Talmud or Qur'an (or personal revelations) say so, he
> may for all I know be speaking the truth, but he's not making a *scholarly*
> statement, because you can only agree or disagree with the claim, you can't
> *discuss* it unless you share the person's religious convictions.

Agreed.  I understood Dan's comment to be saying that the NT 
material proves that there was an interpretive method that used 
foreshadowing, nothing more.  My point is that scholarship really is 
a democratic process, and that means democratic for everybody 
including Christians.

> Personally I don't see what the fuss is about "Old Testament" - as a
> christian of sorts I always took the "old" to mean "primary" and NOT
> "superceded", but if it bothers anyone I'll try not to use it.

I tend to alternate between the two and imply nothing at all by 
either term.  Both are legitimate designations, if history means 
anything.  People are free to read whatever they want into either 
one, but that also doesn't prove anything.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No study of probabilities inside a given frame can ever
tell us how probable it is that the frame itself can be
violated."  C. S. Lewis