manwithdream

Is it possible to disagree with how Christianity explains certain quotes in the Hebrew Bible without being told your arguments are polemical? When Bible scholars disagree about certain quotes, their arguments are seen as scholarly. Is it because they only disagree with other scholars? If they say they disagree with the traditional Christian explanation, does it then become polemics? (I hope someone understands what I mean because I am not sure how to ask this question.)

Toto

Do you have a concrete example?

semiopen

This is a standard definition of Polemics.

To take one of my hobby horses:

The Jewish/Christian dispute on Isaiah 7:14, on the meaning of Almah is polemics.

The current scholarly understanding that almah does not mean virgin is not polemical because there is no axe to grind.

However, an atheist who argues this to discredit Christianity is being polemical, the intent being to cause controversy.

Solo

Do I understand correctly from the above that the writer believes an atheist cannot be a scholar ?

Jiri

Toto

But there is no real controversy on this point, so why is this polemical?

If a Christian discusses this to show that Christians are smart enough to deal with modern scholarship without losing their faith, is that polemical?

If a Christian writes about this to fulfill the requirements for a course, is that not polemical?

avi

Let's leave out the word atheist, for we could substitute Buddhist, or Daoist, with equal significance. Your notion, if I have understood you, is to denounce those who seek to expose contradictions in the "bible". You identify them as "warlike", the explanation for the Greek word polemikos, at the link you provided. I feel kind of warlike, whenever I think about any of the various religions, so perhaps my writing should be pigeonholed as simply polemical.

That's not disagreeable to me. What is disagreeable, is to read, in your post, that a dispute about the interpretation of a word, has been presented to the community, to discredit Christianity, when the goal, in my opinion, is rather, to clarify the original intent of those who authored the texts which we call "gospels". It follows, then, according to my way of thinking, that exposing the error in interpretation, by definition, reveals the absurdity of the notion that "the" bible is inerrant.

The myth of the virgin birth, rests in part, upon mistranslating the Hebrew word for young adolescent girl, as I understand it. That notion may be utterly false, since I am able to read not even one letter of the Hebrew alphabet, save the very first letter, aleph.

When you correct my mistaken impression, I urge you to do so with a polemical tomahawk, because, unlike those who begin weeping, wailing, and gnashing their teeth, upon learning of a mistake, I am not offended to read that I have erred most egregiously. I will not treat your absolute repudiation of my opinion, as an affront to my intellect, or, rather, as an acknowledgement of the lack thereof.

avi

manwithdream

What difference does it make if a person has an axe to grind when a person argues against a Christian explanation of a quote in the Hebrew Bible? If the person uses the same arguments as an unbiased person, why should it be called polemical when a biased person says them?

According to most Jewish commentaries, Isaiah 53 is about Israel suffering for the sins of the nations, and the nations are the ones doing the talking. Christians say it is about their man. I think it is about Hezekiah. When I give my reasons, most people say I am being polemical (if that is the right word). Even though I am against Christianity, I would like to be able to disagree without being called that, but I don't know how. When scholars give their explanations, they give their reasons, but somehow they are not considered polemical.

Is being polemical just an attitude or the arguments?

show_no_mercy

Polemics usually involve a lot of emotionalism, histrionics, ad hominems, and other adjectives that detract from the meat of the argument.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" is polemic. Bart Erhman's "Lost Christianities" (describing Marcion) is not. A level of professionalism is required.

semiopen

Not at all Jiri.

I meant to use this as an example of someone who takes a position to discredit an opposing opinion. The opposing opinion is different than the actual position one is arguing against. In other words, the position taken is one that is damaging to the larger idea which in this case would be the immaculate reception.

Another example might include the Tel_Dan_Stele. In this case, a religious person might argue that bytdwd means House of David to confirm the larger idea that the bible is literally true. A secular person might argue the phrase is misunderstood or the stele is a fake to discredit the larger idea.

If the person's motivation is not to discuss the thing on its merits the discussion is polemical.

mountainman

TODAY things are different. Upon which epoch do you focus?

Do you seek the history? The history of the issue commences on the other foot. NO it is not. Christinaity was the supreme religion enforced by law codes which differentiated the Jewish people from the Greeks. (Gentiles) One need only consult the Codex Theodosianus for the earliest precedents. The Law codes enacted under the 4th century rules of "christian emperors" were in any other word DRACONIAN. Do you want a reference or two?

Maybe both and maybe it also depends on the nature of the hegemon against which any "polemic" is being delivered.

Satire is a form of polemic used against the state version of Christianity since the 4th century.