5,980 reputation
1425
bio website
location East Coast USA
age
visits member for 1 year, 9 months
seen 4 hours ago

I'm basically a self-taught, now inactive, web designer who still seeks to learn more about css (and some javascript) while pushing it to its limits: all as a part-time hobby between my Ph.D. studies in Systematic Theology. For those interacting with me on Biblical Hermeneutics, this meta question of mine will reveal a lot about where I come from regarding that topic.


1d
comment What does the vocabulary of 2 Peter indicate about its authorship?
FYI-I replied to the above comment in chat.
1d
comment What does the vocabulary of 2 Peter indicate about its authorship?
The value of vocabulary analysis from my view is primarily in isolating topics that God decided to write about through certain authors (and across Scripture as a whole). Other points of style (how an author uses a particular phrase for example) may have use in interpreting, but again, in my view, one has to always keep in mind that a single Author is behind that as well, and so how much different a word/phrase is used between authors is suspect if basing it merely on the writer. More important is how they are used within context that is valuable (whoever it is that wrote the word/phrase).
1d
comment What does the vocabulary of 2 Peter indicate about its authorship?
Yes, presuppositions influence all, but at least in dealing with meaning of the text, one can argue definitions of words, literal/figurative, etc., staying within the realm of "hermeneutics." With this question, my answer to the title question/2nd bullet would be "It tells us nothing about authorship" and to the 1st bullet would be "There is no such freedom with divinely inspired texts." But the only "proof" I can offer would be a theological argument about the nature of the Scripture's formation (too far outside the realm of the site[?]). So I agree: "more so" impossible to answer.
1d
comment What does the vocabulary of 2 Peter indicate about its authorship?
Both your title question and final subsidiary questions are impossible to answer objectively (without presuppositional influence). I put no weight in vocab of text for authorship of Scripture because (1) people have a wide range of vocab; (2) vary vocab by topic; (3) [most important to me] the words are as much chosen by God in the inspiration process as they are a part of that person's vocab, so the dual authorship means they are not merely writing as themselves; (4) because of (3), there is no change from author to any amanuensis. Views on 3 & 4 greatly influence value of vocab analysis.
2d
comment Why is the observation that “it was good” missing on the second day?
I would argue the waters were not yet complete on day 2, as they were "unbounded," and were not yet "good" precisely because they were still covering land that was needing to be made dry (which is, of course, what I do argue in my answer). I'm actually taking my observations from your observations and incorporating that into my answer.
2d
comment Why is the observation that “it was good” missing on the second day?
The completion segment organization (keying on "was good") then has the pattern of 1/4 - 2 occurrences parallel, 2/5 - 2 occurrences chiastic, 3/6 - 2 occurrences parallel, 7 - 1 occurrence culmination (mankind)/summary (totality). It seems significant that this works out to 7 as the final lone statement. This also, of course, happens to fit my answer's argument better (cheesy grin), and your thoughts have helped me to expand mine in seeing this pattern emerge. Thanks.
2d
comment Why is the observation that “it was good” missing on the second day?
Interesting. Two things: (1) highlight "sea(s)" along with "waters", just as "land/earth"; (2) You organized by "day" (understandable), but it might be better as "completion" segments--it looks like the first part of day 3 should move up to join with day 2, as the "waters" are still being dealt with (to expose the land), and this puts day 3's 1st "good" statement parallel to day 5's (chiastic relation "was so"/"was so"/"was good"/"was good"), leaving day 3's 2nd "was so/good" to parallel the 1st "was so/good" of day 6, and the 2nd "was so/good" as the overall summary of all days (as it reads).
Nov
5
comment Earliest attestation to Luke's gospel
@DickHarfield Agree that we differ in "views on the same evidence," as I hold all Scripture to be 1st century works by the author's they are ascribed to, and I believe all Scripture was recognized as such by whatever generation the Scripture was written in (and thus partly why it was preserved), so the 1 Timothy and 2 Peter references to me are not anachronisms. Thanks for your thoughtful participation.
Nov
4
comment What was Luke's relationship to Paul regarding Christian matters, and thus their texts' relationships?
@Davïd: It relates to the 1 Tim 5:18 text most directly, in that the presumption of the original comment was that Paul would not call Luke's writing Scripture because a master would not use the authority of the student. But my statement of "seeking ... Scripture" is for using it foremost in demonstrating the relationship between them (as best we can tell) from Scripture/history. So it is a historical context question, aimed at understanding the relationship, to better understand how that relation might have influenced textual matters (generally, but specifically here 1 Tim 5:18). Make sense?
Nov
4
comment Earliest attestation to Luke's gospel
Of (3): That is the heart of my answer, that Paul did call Luke's gospels Scripture, but such need not be "ancient," only authoritative, and if Paul considered Luke's gospel authoritative about Christ's life, I see no reason He would not have used the term (even as I believe Peter used it of Paul's writings in 2 Pet 3:15-16).
Nov
4
comment Earliest attestation to Luke's gospel
@DickHarfield Thx back. Of (1): I would agree Paul had such a knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, but not necessarily Greek sources (being familiar with some of their poets is not enough to consider "encyclopediac") nor for sources about Jesus's life (i.e. gospels). Of (2): I would challenge the assumption that Luke is Paul's disciple or pupil, rather than simply a companion (indeed, they may have been mutually teaching each other what the "learned"). Cont...
Nov
4
comment What is the proper interpretation of ἄνωθεν in Luke 1:3?
+1 for conceivably valid option. My "authority" reference from Lightfoot I believe takes it in the #1 sense, but with a figurative meaning (i.e. "from above" is a spatial position reference figuratively saying "from God who is above in heaven," i.e. God directly). The #2 sense seems to fit both a "time" reference as well as your proposal as I read the entry. I cannot accept this answer, however, without far more argumentation as to why it should be taken this way as opposed to the other ways.
Oct
30
comment Earliest attestation to Luke's gospel
@cdjc: I would say "yes" and "no." Obviously it is an attestation to the Gospel of Luke, but assuming it is the same author, then it is not an independent testimony (which, though the OP does not mention it, seems to be the implication; i.e. who besides the author of the Gospel of Luke is the earliest to attest to it).
Oct
30
comment Earliest attestation to Luke's gospel
@DickHarfield: Thanks for the input. I agree with your first point, but not the second. I've updated my answer to address both aspects.
Oct
24
comment What is the new covenant made with Jews/Israel in Jeremiah 31:31
I have a hard time agreeing with the close vote as "too broad." While certainly volumes have been written about Jer 31:31, it is but a single verse, and all the sub-questions relate to the interpretation of it. So if our site cannot handle trying to interpret a single verse, then we might as well close shop. It seems a summary answer can be given without getting too bogged down in extensive details. Of course, differing hermeneutics will probably give differing summaries, but that is a good thing.
Oct
22
comment Omission of 'fasting' in Mark 9:29
@kmote Thank you for your constructive criticism. I have updated my answer to propose a thesis on systematic omission of the wording, as I would agree that the topical connections to the other passages do tend to point away from accidental.
Oct
22
comment Omission of 'fasting' in Mark 9:29
@Davïd I added to my wording about the "average Joe." I do believe errors were more prone in that time because of this, and that seems to be the general point of why most of the variants were deemed to have arisen in that time. However, the same types of errors occurred whether by professionals or not.
Oct
21
comment Are the words “wife” and “woman” the same in Hebrew and Greek?
I believe the added possessive pronoun ("own woman"; τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα) and adjective ("own man"; τὸν ἴδιον ἄνδρα) in Greek is specifically the idiomatic way of guaranteeing the term is used for wife/husband. That is, the absence of them would leave the terms more open to the generic woman/man (though not necessarily, context is still important), but because of their addition then the 1 Cor 7:2 passage is certainly using the term in a spousal reference.
Oct
20
comment Omission of 'fasting' in Mark 9:29
I (of course) tend to agree with @JackDouglas here, but I have added further thoughts on this into my answer.
Oct
20
comment Omission of 'fasting' in Mark 9:29
+1 Good research on the "why," even if I disagree with the conclusion of omitting.