Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 05-05-2006, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Brian McLaren? He has a Wikipedia entry, and appears to be more of an activist than a scholar - one of TIME magazine's "25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America." Postmodern obscurantism seems to be very useful for modern evangelicals - they can use it to bash science from a more respectable position than fundamentalism.

John D. Caputo
Thomas J. Watson Professor of Religion and Humanities
Professor of Philosophy

http://religion.syr.edu/caputo.html

In the battle of credential, you simply can't beat us poststructuralists. We just work harder.

Gamera, the link alone was enough. No need to take up so much space just to try to make a point.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

Apikorus · 05-05-2006, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I never indicated that McLaren was a academician; I mentioned him (and there are dozens more) to rebut your claim that post-structuralism is a "flop" as to biblical studies.

If McLaren is the best you can offer, you've confirmed my claim.

Quote:

Wow -- an academic CV. How very intimidating, especially with all the space-filling paper titles. Better yet, let's see those of Bill Dever or Frank Cross, which probably run about 50 pages each. By the way, the link alone was sufficient. (Here we have an example of the modern adage, "when you can't beat 'em, spam 'em.")

Quote:

He is currently working on the notion of the "weakness of God."

Fascinating. I'm sure this will yield many important results for Hebrew Bible studies.

I suppose it is harmless to let Caputo do his thing. His work hasn't affected Biblical Studies one whit, so far as I can tell. Ask yourself: why are there no postmodernist physicists?

Ah but maybe there are postmodern physicists: Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity

See also: postmodernism gets hoaxed.

The book: Fashionable Nonsense : Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science (or via: amazon.co.uk).

spin · 05-05-2006, 10:18 PM

In this discussion, which now seems way off topic, Gamera has steered clear of the text as much as possible. This is understandable. His position is not derived from the text itself, but from later commentators, such as the writer of Mt 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

First, even if the young woman were known to the author, that doesn't rule out a secondary, messianic meaning.

Or a tertiary meaning relating to the modern abortion debate. Or a quaternary meaning that the child was a symbol of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Or... First, we must deal with the text for what it says, and our friend Gamera has assiduously avoided that necessity like the plague. Unless a text makes sense in its literal context, then all bets are offf for any hypothetical other meanings.

To understand the significance of the text, we must focus on what the text says. One cannot take a bit that one likes out of the original context and play with it.

Gamera avoids the meanings of the words in their grammatical context, then avoids their meaning in their discourse context. He is simply uninterested in what the text actually says, because he seems to already know what the text must mean for his purposes. This second meaning of his is what he is interested in and the primary meaning can happily be forgotten, whatever it is. This puts him in the envious position of knowing something without knowing how he knows it. This is the epistemological quandary he chooses to overlook.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

It is naive to talk about "history" as if it were a nontextual matter. History is what is recorded in texts.

This is all very well in its simplistic nature. Of course history is what is recorded in texts, but this is not sufficient, for not all texts are history (unless one wants to devoid "history" of its meaning). History is obviously not purely text based. Unless text relates to artefact, its historical relevance cannot be tested. Text without establishable context renders that text useless.

However, history is text centred and Gamera has avoided looking at the text. He has no reason for his understanding of the text based on what the text says. He has tried to obfuscate the text, while avoiding his responsibilities of showing what the text means. If one cannot show what a text means, then one wastes one's breath commenting on it.

The deviation from the topic in this thread seems to be based on Gamera's unwillingness to do his job of tackling what the text means. He has shown no willingness to elucidate his understanding of the Hebrew text. When asked to do so, he merely made a feable argument based on the English text.

Gamera, I would appeal to you to fulfill your responsibilities and produce an understanding of Isa 7:14 based on the Hebrew in its literary and indicated historical context. Other posters, I would appeal to you to wait for Gamera to do so, before continuing.

spin

Jack the Bodiless · 05-08-2006, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Third, and most importantly, this reading simply ignores the purpose of prophesy literature (and I notice that a lot of philological readings of the bible -- such as Nahigian's -- make the mistake of treating the text not for what it is: literature with literatry tropes included). Why the heck is Isaiah giving this prophesy to Ahaz? He's a bad king in deparate circumstances who isn't looking for a sign (he state's he doesn't want to test God, out of false piety or cynicism, you decide). But God goes out of his way to give him a prophesy anyway that involved the destruction of Assyria and some very obscure passages about bees and curds. OK, what's the point? Is it to calm Ahaz (why?), to dissaude him from an alliance with Assyria (why not just tell him not to, message from God), or is it like most prophesy literature -- to test the listener as to willingness to accept the real meaning of the prophesy and so discern his character? It must be the latter because that's what prophesy literature almost always does, and that's why it's almost always obscure and riddle-like. I mean God could have just said, Ahaz, here's my prophesy -- you're going to win so don't go with the Assyrians! But he didn't. And why? Because the prophesy ultimately isn't about Ahaz's conflict with the bad guys, but larger issues about Judae/Israel, Ahaz' relationship to God, and yes, salvation through a messiah.

So, our straightforward reading of the text (as a prophecy to Ahaz regarding events 7 centuries before Jesus) "doesn't make sense" because Isaiah wasn't being straightforward enough: he should have said "In six months a child will be born named Immanual. That's the sign, Ahaz. Heed it."

But we're supposed to assume that the "true" meaning is even LESS straightforward: because prophecies are "obscure and riddle-like".

This blatant contradiction in your position doesn't bother you at all?

Apikorus · 05-09-2006, 02:58 AM

darstec · 05-09-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In this discussion, which now seems way off topic, Gamera has steered clear of the text as much as possible. This is understandable. His position is not derived from the text itself, but from later commentators, such as the writer of Mt 1.

Or a tertiary meaning relating to the modern abortion debate. Or a quaternary meaning that the child was a symbol of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Or... First, we must deal with the text for what it says, and our friend Gamera has assiduously avoided that necessity like the plague. Unless a text makes sense in its literal context, then all bets are offf for any hypothetical other meanings.

To understand the significance of the text, we must focus on what the text says. One cannot take a bit that one likes out of the original context and play with it.

Gamera avoids the meanings of the words in their grammatical context, then avoids their meaning in their discourse context. He is simply uninterested in what the text actually says, because he seems to already know what the text must mean for his purposes. This second meaning of his is what he is interested in and the primary meaning can happily be forgotten, whatever it is. This puts him in the envious position of knowing something without knowing how he knows it. This is the epistemological quandary he chooses to overlook.

This is all very well in its simplistic nature. Of course history is what is recorded in texts, but this is not sufficient, for not all texts are history (unless one wants to devoid "history" of its meaning). History is obviously not purely text based. Unless text relates to artefact, its historical relevance cannot be tested. Text without establishable context renders that text useless.

However, history is text centred and Gamera has avoided looking at the text. He has no reason for his understanding of the text based on what the text says. He has tried to obfuscate the text, while avoiding his responsibilities of showing what the text means. If one cannot show what a text means, then one wastes one's breath commenting on it.

The deviation from the topic in this thread seems to be based on Gamera's unwillingness to do his job of tackling what the text means. He has shown no willingness to elucidate his understanding of the Hebrew text. When asked to do so, he merely made a feable argument based on the English text.

Gamera, I would appeal to you to fulfill your responsibilities and produce an understanding of Isa 7:14 based on the Hebrew in its literary and indicated historical context. Other posters, I would appeal to you to wait for Gamera to do so, before continuing.

spin

I think you just closed this thread.:Cheeky:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-09-2006, 02:58 AM	#285
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	<crickets>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.