In mathematical terms.. understanding difficult verse in light of many clear verses.. would be like trying to understand Cantor's set theory and transfinite numbers in terms of elementary arithmetic.
how can you add a number and itself and get the same number.. *everybody* knows one and one makes two..
that was Kronecker's argument. Kronecker was a moron..
You're right, Ham! Our Advanced Greek prof told us that when scholars are confronted by texts with variant readings, they assume that the more difficult reading is more likely to be original than the simpler readings, on the grounds that copyists would make the texts easier to read, rather than more difficult.
The more difficult verses often bring important factors into play that are taken for granted in the simpler verses. Simply dismissing the more difficult verses often leads to a very flat, low-fidelity translation.
Festinger theorized that the mind does not like to entertain two conflicting ideas at the same time. If the ideas are too greatly in conflict with each other, cognitive dissonance will be the result. The mind will invent a sort of compromised melding of the two. This understanding the difficult in light of the simpler seems like a variation of the same basic concept.
I think that model appealed to us when we were immature minds.
"Most of the privileges and responsibilities of adulthood are legally granted by the age of 18. That's when you can vote, enlist in the military, move out on your own, but is that the true age of maturity? A growing body of science says, no. That critical parts of the brain involved in decision-making are not fully developed until years later at age 25 or so."
Don't look for unnecessary difficulties; examine it all; and then see where variants lie. Then you might pick up some nuance or clear difference.
Why is the difference there? Is it really something very different?
Or could it be use of irony or some other figure of speech? "That's a great job, well done!" can mean either you did a really excellent job - or you botched it horribly - depending on the tone of voice. Unfortunately different tones of voice don't always come through in written words; even less so when the words were originally in a completely different language.
One of the things I'm dealing with, as I work on my masters, is the fact that systematic theology has fallen out of fashion. At least it has at the School Of Theology where I am studying. Systematic theology is an attempt to develop a system that makes sense of the whole Bible. Efforts to do so began in the 700s in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The greatest western system before the Reformation was Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. The greatest system to come out of the Reformation was Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. There have been many other, lesser systems since then, one of which was Darby's dispensationalism, the system Wierwille taught with some minor idiosyncrasies.
Apart from the dictum that the few difficult verses should be interpreted in light of the many clear verses, the most systematic "principle" that Wierwille taught was probably the idea that a word's meaning is established in the word's first use.
The problem with systematic theology is that the way a word is used in the system often becomes more normative than the way the word is used in the Bible. For instance, in dispensationalism the Greek word oikonomia is taken by the system to mean "a period of time," whereas, in the Bible, oikonomia never means "a period of time," but always "stewardship" or responsibility."
The truth is that no two writers of works that came into the Bible ever used words in an identical sense. Doing a re-interpretation of Acts chapter 2, I will have to consider the differences as well as the similarities between the ways Luke used the word glossa in Acts 2 and the way Paul used it in I Corinthians 14. Or, what is the relation between the way Luke uses the phrase "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and the way Paul uses the phrase "the earnest of the Spirit"?
The problem with interpreting the few difficult verses in light of the many simple verses is that, the differences between difficult and simple may NOT be inherent in the verses themselves, but rather in the system.
One of the things I'm dealing with, as I work on my masters, is the fact that systematic theology has fallen out of fashion. At least it has at the School Of Theology where I am studying. Systematic theology is an attempt to develop a system that makes sense of the whole Bible. Efforts to do so began in the 700s in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The greatest western system before the Reformation was Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. The greatest system to come out of the Reformation was Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. There have been many other, lesser systems since then, one of which was Darby's dispensationalism, the system Wierwille taught with some minor idiosyncrasies.
I don't know about anyone's "system."
I do know my approach is to try to understand what's written,
and come from a perspective that Scripture is sensible and consistent.
That gets me MUCH better results than coming from a perspective that it is INconsistent
and senseless. I think the Bible makes sense of the whole Bible, not any "system."
(I can never tell for sure who you hate more-Darby or wierwille.
However, it's probably wierwille because you haven't mentioned Darby lately.)
Apart from the dictum that the few difficult verses should be interpreted in light of the many clear verses, the most systematic "principle" that Wierwille taught was probably the idea that a word's meaning is established in the word's first use.
"wierwille's rules of thumb tend to be incorrect."
That's one of MY rules of thumb. ;)
The problem with systematic theology is that the way a word is used in the system often becomes more normative than the way the word is used in the Bible. For instance, in dispensationalism the Greek word oikonomia is taken by the system to mean "a period of time," whereas, in the Bible, oikonomia never means "a period of time," but always "stewardship" or responsibility."
Even when I was in twi, I rendered it "stewardship" even when we were discussing "administrations."
I felt that put the emphasis where it belonged, and "administration" had too much modern baggage
for people to clearly see the meaning where it was claimed to be so- such as implying it was
a period of time.
The truth is that no two writers of works that came into the Bible ever used words in an identical sense. Doing a re-interpretation of Acts chapter 2, I will have to consider the differences as well as the similarities between the ways Luke used the word glossa in Acts 2 and the way Paul used it in I Corinthians 14. Or, what is the relation between the way Luke uses the phrase "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and the way Paul uses the phrase "the earnest of the Spirit"?
The problem with interpreting the few difficult verses in light of the many simple verses is that, the differences between difficult and simple may NOT be inherent in the verses themselves, but rather in the system.
Love,
Steve
IMHO,
the biggest problem with the twi-style system is the reliance on a system.
To be specific, the claim of "a mathematic exactness and a scientific precision"
was wild and unsupported, and the opposite of what later evidence showed.
Those who embraced it too strongly ended up looking for hidden meanings
in Scripture, and a few still look for hidden meanings in vpw's works.
It's NOT a 21st century textbook. It was meant to convey meaning for peoples
thousands of years apart, thousands of cultures apart. And it does.
Recommended Posts
Ham
In mathematical terms.. understanding difficult verse in light of many clear verses.. would be like trying to understand Cantor's set theory and transfinite numbers in terms of elementary arithmetic.
how can you add a number and itself and get the same number.. *everybody* knows one and one makes two..
that was Kronecker's argument. Kronecker was a moron..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
You're right, Ham! Our Advanced Greek prof told us that when scholars are confronted by texts with variant readings, they assume that the more difficult reading is more likely to be original than the simpler readings, on the grounds that copyists would make the texts easier to read, rather than more difficult.
The more difficult verses often bring important factors into play that are taken for granted in the simpler verses. Simply dismissing the more difficult verses often leads to a very flat, low-fidelity translation.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think that model appealed to us when we were immature minds. Now the difference seems to be welcomed. Weird..
In a strange way..
sowy.
I'm looking for something different.. maybe it could be a path out of this madness..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Most of the privileges and responsibilities of adulthood are legally granted by the age of 18. That's when you can vote, enlist in the military, move out on your own, but is that the true age of maturity? A growing body of science says, no. That critical parts of the brain involved in decision-making are not fully developed until years later at age 25 or so."
SOURCE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Interpret the difficult verses in light of the clear verses" is a rule of thumb,
not an etched-in-stone "Thou Shalt."
When trying to understand something-especially something like a subject in the Bible,
it is important to begin with what is straightforward and obvious,
and THEN take a look at what isn't so straightforward.
When you have almost everything clearly saying something,
and 1 thing that says the opposite,
then it's good to take a closer look at the last one,
since you may have misread it,
or brought a preconceived notion to it,
or it may be poorly translated,
or it may not even be in the critical texts but was added by someone who meant well.
I often found that was handy when trying to study something.
And yes, I deconstructed that method to confirm I wasn't just
finding what I wanted to find-
when I examined the clear verses first, I found there was nothing to find there
in terms of changing the meaning,
so then I checked the unclear verses and got the same results as before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I think WW has it.
Don't look for unnecessary difficulties; examine it all; and then see where variants lie. Then you might pick up some nuance or clear difference.
Why is the difference there? Is it really something very different?
Or could it be use of irony or some other figure of speech? "That's a great job, well done!" can mean either you did a really excellent job - or you botched it horribly - depending on the tone of voice. Unfortunately different tones of voice don't always come through in written words; even less so when the words were originally in a completely different language.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
.....it all has to fit like a hand in a glove.
What kind of glove...a surgical glove, a welding glove, a baseball glove, a snow mitten?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Hands rarely fit into gloves. Unless one has an expensive tailor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
One of the things I'm dealing with, as I work on my masters, is the fact that systematic theology has fallen out of fashion. At least it has at the School Of Theology where I am studying. Systematic theology is an attempt to develop a system that makes sense of the whole Bible. Efforts to do so began in the 700s in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The greatest western system before the Reformation was Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. The greatest system to come out of the Reformation was Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. There have been many other, lesser systems since then, one of which was Darby's dispensationalism, the system Wierwille taught with some minor idiosyncrasies.
Apart from the dictum that the few difficult verses should be interpreted in light of the many clear verses, the most systematic "principle" that Wierwille taught was probably the idea that a word's meaning is established in the word's first use.
The problem with systematic theology is that the way a word is used in the system often becomes more normative than the way the word is used in the Bible. For instance, in dispensationalism the Greek word oikonomia is taken by the system to mean "a period of time," whereas, in the Bible, oikonomia never means "a period of time," but always "stewardship" or responsibility."
The truth is that no two writers of works that came into the Bible ever used words in an identical sense. Doing a re-interpretation of Acts chapter 2, I will have to consider the differences as well as the similarities between the ways Luke used the word glossa in Acts 2 and the way Paul used it in I Corinthians 14. Or, what is the relation between the way Luke uses the phrase "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and the way Paul uses the phrase "the earnest of the Spirit"?
The problem with interpreting the few difficult verses in light of the many simple verses is that, the differences between difficult and simple may NOT be inherent in the verses themselves, but rather in the system.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I don't know about anyone's "system."
I do know my approach is to try to understand what's written,
and come from a perspective that Scripture is sensible and consistent.
That gets me MUCH better results than coming from a perspective that it is INconsistent
and senseless. I think the Bible makes sense of the whole Bible, not any "system."
(I can never tell for sure who you hate more-Darby or wierwille.
However, it's probably wierwille because you haven't mentioned Darby lately.)
"wierwille's rules of thumb tend to be incorrect."
That's one of MY rules of thumb. ;)
Even when I was in twi, I rendered it "stewardship" even when we were discussing "administrations."
I felt that put the emphasis where it belonged, and "administration" had too much modern baggage
for people to clearly see the meaning where it was claimed to be so- such as implying it was
a period of time.
IMHO,
the biggest problem with the twi-style system is the reliance on a system.
To be specific, the claim of "a mathematic exactness and a scientific precision"
was wild and unsupported, and the opposite of what later evidence showed.
Those who embraced it too strongly ended up looking for hidden meanings
in Scripture, and a few still look for hidden meanings in vpw's works.
It's NOT a 21st century textbook. It was meant to convey meaning for peoples
thousands of years apart, thousands of cultures apart. And it does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.