Timeline for 'Good Fit' vs. 'Bad Fit' Hermeneutics
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 21, 2013 at 13:42 | answer | added | Jack DouglasMod | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 7:00 | comment | added | Tau | @Dan-Point taken [( ; = ) | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 6:48 | comment | added | Dan | @user2479 I should also mention the fact that I come from a religious persuasion that values tradition and allegory far more than secular scholarship - so I'm also indicting several of our own 'scholars.' But the issue to me is not to evaluate the worth of scholarship outside of this context, but merely to point out what fits well here in this context. Legaspi's book is actually about 'The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies' - he's taking the opposite stance of what this site is aiming for, but it makes for interesting food for thought. | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 6:33 | comment | added | Tau | @Dan-There, there now, I didn't mean to rub you the wrong way. I just found it 'interesting' when you cited 'empiricism' and yet failed to provide the 'empirical' data. But you're right, my 'dime a dozen' denomination(I think) perhaps doesn't publish peer reviews in that publication-does that mean they're not Biblical Studies scholars? | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 4:50 | comment | added | Dan | But he is referring to (and me also) Biblical Studies scholars of reputable, secular institutions who publish in peer-reviewed journals (including peers not from your specific theological persuasion). Not the dime-a-dozen denominational variety (every denomination/Protestant movement has their very own esteemed scholar who always seems to pull their party line). | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 4:48 | comment | added | Dan | @user2479 it's likely a reasoned opinion of the author, but not a claim original to me - so take it up with Legaspi :P | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 3:28 | comment | added | Tau | @Dan Hmmmm....I see the inference made and the conclusion given; but I see no criteria presented to make such an evaluation. Am I to assume by the number to manuscripts presented to the Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies? Or is it the 'reasoned opinion' of the author? | |
| Dec 20, 2013 at 18:18 | history | edited | Dan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited re:discussion with Jack
|
| Dec 20, 2013 at 16:32 | comment | added | Dan | @user2479 I cited my previous post, which directly cites (and quotes) a scholarly source that makes this claim. | |
| Dec 20, 2013 at 7:37 | comment | added | Tau | @Dan-"I've previously pointed out that the overwhelming majority of Biblical Studies scholars are empiricist in method." Sweeping generality. You would be better off by saying,"65% of Bible Studies scholars, according to Christianity Today, are empiricists." Then one could make their assumptions of whether or not your statement is valid. Your point is well taken in regards to hermeneutics; this is a hermeneutics site. I believe Monica answered this some time ago-could you build off her answer? | |
| Dec 19, 2013 at 20:41 | comment | added | Dan | @Caleb hmm I'll think about how to do that. I would need to rewrite 90% of the post, and I'm not quite sure what the question would be.... (fishing for more guidance/suggestions) | |
| Dec 19, 2013 at 20:39 | comment | added | Caleb Mod | As it is? It's not in any shape to be migrated verbatum but if you changed the byline from being about this site to being about the overall field and the attributes of different hermeneutical approaches this could easily be ported (and I suggest would be more overall benefit to the site). Perhaps something about the attributes that make any hermeneutic more or less repeatable... | |
| Dec 19, 2013 at 20:33 | comment | added | Dan | @Caleb I hadn't thought about asking on main - but I'm pretty sure this would be off topic as is. Any suggestions? | |
| Dec 19, 2013 at 18:15 | comment | added | Caleb Mod | I think it more useful at this point to ask one or several questions on main about actual hermeneutics methods and their reproducibility (and perhaps how that positions them in the world of academics, theology, and religion). This topic really doesn't need to be meta, I don't think it will do much more than stir up more drama. On the other hand some of us are mostly here to learn about the field of hermeneutics and would love to see more questions about the field instead of that just making use of the field. | |
| Dec 19, 2013 at 17:57 | history | asked | Dan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |