Re: [revelation-list] Osborne arrived
- Hello Philip,
Thanks for your reply. A few comments:
on 4/13/03 2:01 PM, Phil Mayo wrote:
> I too have been working with Osborne's commentary; mainly in Rev 10-12. IYes I agree and I remember noting this same tendency in '91 when I read the
> find your comment interesting that Osborne refuses to get forced into an
> either/or view of the Lamb imagery. I have noticed this tendency throughout
> the sections I have worked in as well. He presents both views on an issue
> and then seems to take consistently a middle ground. While this is
> sometimes advantages, consistently doing this seems to be more an attempt to
> avoid controversy.
first edition of Osborn's Hermeneutical Spiral (HS). In HS Osborne attempted
to find something good to say about even the most dubious schools of
hermeneutics. My comment about D.H. Lawrence & Rudolph Steiner was an
allusion to this.
What Osborne is doing here might be labeled the Hegelian Waltz. State two
extreme positions and then find a middle road and then call your position
"balanced." Osborne certainly didn't invent this. 30 years ago I got an Old
Testament scholar mad at me for needling him about the same procedure.
All this being said, when it comes to the Lamb image I am inclined to agree
with Osborne's analysis. I think the divine warrior aspect is very important
to the understanding of the Apocalypse. There is no question that the
sacrifcial aspect is prominent as well. So I would give Osborne good marks
on this one. I think he got it about right.
>I agree here as well. Osborne's ECNT on Revelation is the best thing I have
> This is not to suggest that his commentary isn't good. It does seem to fall
> along more traditional or conservative lines (as you note) and I do think it
> is well done and would be easier for students than Aune or even Beale.
read by him so far. I would use it if I were teaching a class on the book.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062