Re: [lxx] Digest Number 103
- Dear Andrew:
You are making dogmatic assertions without providing the scholarly evidence. Until you do so, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but remember the Scripture also admonishes us not to be wise in our own opinion. You obviously did not even bother to try and check out the scholarly article I referred you to as you do not want to be confused by the facts. Not everything "Jewish" is evil my friend, though yes, Jews did crucify the Lord of glory. But Jews also were the first believers and the planters of the church. They used Jewish hermeneutics and Jewish idioms and Jewish ways of communicating to their Jewish audiences. You cannot possibly understand the thorough Jewishness of the New Testament without coming to grips with that.
As far as your broad and sweeping dismissal of the synecdotal method of hermeneutics being contained in the New Testament and more specifically the Book of Hebrews, you stand pretty much alone. Scholarly opinion and common sense is against you. You think you are glorifying the Scriptures by such provincialism and narrowness, but you are not, but rather creating controversies and contradictions where there need not be. Scripture is offensive enough without adding further unneeded offense and stumbling blocks.
As far again as my admonition to double check your spelling and grammar, I reiterate it. Like it or not, poor grammar leaves an impression of ignorance, and people will more likely than not pay more attention and give greater weight to your thoughts if you are more careful in your presentation of them. If you are so sloppy in the writing of your thoughts, how do we know you are not equally sloppy in your analysis of them? This has nothing to do with the fact that there are peoples from all over the world reading this list with different "versions" of English. Your posts are poor spelling and grammar in any "version" of English that I know. This is not an "English as a Second Language" problem.
So my friend, I heartily disagree with you. If you think that you are so all-wise that you can say that it is not with good intentions, and that you can pass judgment on me as a blasphemer, so be it. I
- On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 05:24:42 EST praisegod2@... writes:
> You cannot possibly understand the thorough Jewishness of the NewTestament without coming to grips with that.Greetings,I do not wish to get too deeply involved in the present discussion. However, I feel the need to respond briefly to the above statement. Allow me to qualify my remarks by stating that I am a philosopher, not a biblical scholar; but as a Christian I am more than a little interested in biblical hermeneutics and related disciplines, which is why I am on this list.Your statement regarding the "thorough Jewishness" of the New Testament is, quite frankly, wrong. While I agree with your other remarks about the initial Jewish milieu of the Church, I cannot agree that the writings of the New Testament are, without exception, pervaded by "Jewishness," which is what your statement implies. There are strong Stoic elements in much of Paul's writings, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, is pervaded by Platonic, Stoic, and Gnostic language -- the latter being especially prevalent in the Gospel of John and Colossians, as well. We may indeed argue for a Jewish Gnosticism, and attempt to downplay the strong Persian and other Hellenistic elements in that system of thought, but we can by no means deny the 'Greekness' of Platonism and Stoicism.Again, not wishing to delve too deeply here, I will simply add in closing that the LXX was responsible for introducing Jewish concepts into the Hellenistic world, concepts which Hellenism stamped with its own unique features. The Hermetic text, the Poimandres, is a great example of such a syncretism. However, I am firmly convinced that the Jewish element(s) in the New Testament are more than balanced by the Hellenistic influence, acknowledged or not. I assume you are aware that Paul actually quotes Greek poets and tragedians?Regards to All,Edward