mountainman

Coherence is often useful.

So many posts in BC&H address either the NT literature
or the Hebrew Text literature but not both. Has it ever
entered the discussions of the forums the option of
separating discussion threads for NT Studies alone?

The fact is Constantine delivered the two bound together
and since that time there have been alot of arguments
about who said what and when. Obviously the new
and the old are separated chronologically, and since
consequent discussions are separated in history by
this chronology (of at least a few hundred years),
would it not be better to separate them?

Just a thought.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Baalazel

Given the Christian habit of reference to the OT as a validation of the NT I don't see how to separate them in a meaningful and practical way.

Baal

mountainman

Admittedly this conjecture is valid on the basis of the
historical fact that the two sets were bound together.
The NT was not bound to the Gita or to the writings
of Mani, or to the writings of the Zulus. It was bound
to "Origen's" Greek works on the LXX - descendant to
at least the third century BCE.

But since all modern scholarship without much exception
is convinced the NT texts were written "in the 1st and/or
2nd centuries CE" we are dealing with two different sets
of texts, two different sets of authors, and a very big
question as to how they are in theory supposed to be
related in terms of the field of ancient history.

SPlitting NT studies out from the confusion of issues
related to the Hebrew texts seems appropriate.

Yes, there will always be overlaps, but the confusion
caused by these overlaps might somehow be perceived
for the confusion it is.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Solitary Man

If I start talking about how Tom Clancey fufills prophecies, would you automatically categorize my writings with Tom Clancey's?

mountainman

If you went and published Tom's writings
and at the same time, bound within that
publication some of your own talking, then I'd
be wondering why you did this, and what
your talking really means.

But I would still have two separate chronologies
in mind, one for Tom and one for your talk.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Toto

The current IIDB set up is the result of the history of the board. We could in theory split the forum in two, or we could even break things down further into Early Christian history, Pauline epistles, gospels, etc., but it has been decided not to create any more forums.

Furthermore, this is not the forum to discuss adminstration of the Board.