L/V 10+ Tip of the Day #288 Logos bias - harmonization vs. deeper exploration

MJ. Smith

Another tip of the day (TOTD) series for Logos/Verbum 10. They will be short and often drawn from forum posts. Feel free to ask questions and/or suggest forum posts you'd like to see included. Adding comments about the behavior on mobile and web apps would be appreciated by your fellow forumites. A search for "L/V 10+ Tip of the Day site:community.logos.com" on Google should bring the tips up as should this Reading List within the application.

This tip is inspired by the forum post: Data Errors: Holy Spirit tagging - Logos Forums

Consider this generalization from ChatGPT which I find to be generally true when reading the literature. [quote]

• Christian hermeneutics often focus on resolving discrepancies to establish a cohesive theological narrative.
• Jewish hermeneutics, particularly as seen in the Talmudic tradition, embrace discrepancies and tensions within the text as avenues for deeper exploration and discussion.

Logos Christian bias is shown in the interactive Who Killed Goliath?  This is an excellent introduction to the use of textual criticism to resolve an apparent discrepancy in the text. Note the conclusion on the left "no contradiction".

There are a number of resources in Logos that identify and resolve problematic texts. Think of the Mike Heiser course series "Problem in Biblical Interpretation: Difficult Passages." or Anthony C. Thiselton's Puzzling Passages in Paul: Forty Conundrums Calmly Considered

Now look at Friedeman, Caleb T., ed. A Scripture Index to Rabbinic Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Academic, 2021 and note that the reason for the entry is the contradiction.

[quote]

We now broaden the range of interest, but the topic of Goliath continues to govern, as No. 6 moves on to No. 7. Goliath was son of Orpah, Naomi’s daughter-in-law. That is the point that is now set forth with enormous force. The power of the exegesis emerges at 7.C–D, linking Goliath to David via Orpah and Ruth, so that Goliath and David form wings of a single family, thus intensifying the confrontation and making it relevant to the time of the documents at hand: it was a messianic war.

IV.6 A. It is written both Harafah and Orpah (2 Sam. 21:18, Ruth 1:4).
B. Rab and Samuel:
C. One said, “Her name was Harafah, and why was she called Orpah? Because everybody had sexual relations with her doggie-style.”
D. The other said, “Her name was Orpah, and why was she called Harafah? Because everybody ground her like ground grain (harifoth).
E. “So Scripture says, ‘And the woman took and spread the covering over the well’s mouth and spread ground grain on it’ (2 Sam. 17:19).
F. “If you prefer, I shall propose proof from the following verse: ‘Though you should bray a fool in a mortar with a pestle among ground grain’ (Prov. 27:22).”
IV.7 A. “These four were born to Harafah in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants” (2 Sam. 21:22):
B. Who are they?
C. Said R. Hisda, “Saph, Madon, Goliath, and Ish Bibenob” [2 Sam. 21:18, 20].
D. “And they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants” (2 Sam. 21:22):
E. As it is written, “And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth embraced her” (Ruth 1:14).
F. Said R. Isaac, “Said the Holy One, blessed be he, ‘Let the ones who kissed her come and fall at the hand of the sons of the one who embraced her [and Goliath was son of Orpah, Naomi’s daughter-in-law].’ ”
G. Raba expounded, “As a reward for the four tears that Orpah wept for her mother-in-law, she had such merit that four heroes came forth from her,
H. “as it is said, ‘And they lifted up their voice and wept again’ (Ruth 1:14). [They thus wept twice, each time two tears from the two eyes, hence, four.]”
IV.8 A. It is written, “The arrow (HS) of his spear,” but we read, “The staff (cS) of his spear” (1 Sam. 17:7).
B. Said R. Eleazar, “We have not yet reached even half (HSY) of the power of that wicked man.”
C. On the basis of the passage at hand [we learn that] it is forbidden to recount the prowess of wicked men.
D. In that case, why bring up the subject at all?
E. It is to make known the [still greater] prowess of David.

Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 11a (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 202–203.

.

Admittedly, the Talmud passage is not addressing the same issue in the passage but related issues around the text. Note the interplay of using other passage both to identify issues and to resolve issues.

How does Logos display its bias? by NOT including the verses in tension with the text in the cross-references or in the related passages. Is this bias problematic? No, Logos claims to be a Christian product and this bias confirms it. However, it is a bias that Verbum/Logos users who are Jewish OR belong to a tradition that claims to have inherited the Jewish Oral Tradition need to be aware of so that they build queries, interpret results, and use Guides and other tools with an awareness of this difference. For most users, the limitation would never occur to them.

Lew Worthington

I'll admit to the existence of that bias as found in many Christian traditions and many materials, and that Logos embraces the characterization of that bias. Further, the characterization given by ChatGPT seems supported by the rabbinic tradition. What I question is the universality within Christian traditions that seek closure on theological topics. I am reminded of something I read from Karen Armstrong a long time ago where she said that in the Western Church (another generalization I wouldn't bet on), the Trinity is baffling, whereas the Eastern Church embraces the Trinity as a focus of contemplation. My tradition, in fact, while "Western", celebrates non-resolution of debatable theological areas in many ways, including seeing doubt as an essential part of faith.

My point -- and the relevance to Logos -- is that I would enjoy more tools that highlight the ongoing, loving (?) debate of many of these liminalities within faith traditions. I think that for a brand that unabashedly embraces certainty, Logos does a decent job of making other sides available for exploration. However, it'd be great if there were more tools that would open up avenues of exploration. I have no idea what that would look like from a UX point of view, though.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272061#Comment_1272061

Lew Worthington said:

What I question is the universality within Christian traditions that seek closure on theological topics.

I agree it is not universal, simply a general rule of thumb. I am interested in what Karen Armstrong has to say especially since my tradition includes both churches in the Eastern and Western traditions.

Lew Worthington said:

I think that for a brand that unabashedly embraces certainty, Logos does a decent job of making other sides available for exploration.

I agree or I wouldn't be here.

Lew Worthington said:

However, it'd be great if there were more tools that would open up avenues of exploration.

While I haven't yet developed a concrete proposal, I think the easiest first step would be to create reverse interlinears that could contain options - showing each option where the grammar, syntax, or text is ambiguous or unclear.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272061#Comment_1272061

Lew Worthington said:

What I question is the universality within Christian traditions that seek closure on theological topics.

In my mind the real issue isn't whether we know the answer to every interpretive and theological question, but whether they are in principle answerable. I certainly will never be able to answer them all, and I'm comfortable knowing that. However, as someone with a high view of the inspiration of scripture, and who is also convinced of the unity of truth, I would be very uncomfortable with Logos embracing an implicit bias that these issues are inherently unresolvable. (Though I am happy to admit that some may require divine wisdom, knowledge and insight to resolve - i.e., we'll never get it right this side of heaven.)

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272074#Comment_1272074

EastTN said:

Lew Worthington said:

What I question is the universality within Christian traditions that seek closure on theological topics.

In my mind the real issue isn't whether we know the answer to every interpretive and theological question, but whether they are in principle answerable. I certainly will never be able to answer them all, and I'm comfortable knowing that. However, as someone with a high view of the inspiration of scripture, and who is also convinced of the unity of truth, I would be very uncomfortable with Logos embracing an implicit bias that these issues are inherently unresolvable. (Though I am happy to admit that some may require divine wisdom, knowledge and insight to resolve - i.e., we'll never get it right this side of heaven.)

Well said, my friend.

Aquinas? and Calvin? have noted that all truth is from God, and I agree 100%. I will elaborate and say that these truths are comprehensive in breadth to include even scientific truths. God set gravity in motion and Newton just discovered it and quantified it. Thus, human beings discover truths set by God. We never create truths.

Truth, by definition, is black and white (I think this is what you mean by "unity of truth"). 1 + 1 = 2. It can never be 3. Unlike mathematical truths, all our theological truths have a probability associated with them. For some, we can have 100% probability, implying we can be 100% certain of these beliefs. For others, the probability will be less than 100% implying that we have doubts. All of our beliefs can be laid out on a spectrum from 0% to 100% probability. I agree that Logos not taking sides will be helpful and let Logos just give me the tools to resolve my beliefs.