PROTOTYPE - Please read all the way through

MJ. Smith · November 2023

There is a suggestion on feedbear that has moderate support:

[quote]Logos/Verbum as a product is focused on Bible Study but with forays into theology and homiletics. There is one major element of Bible Study that is missing from the tool set - a survey of the methods of Biblical interpretation. What we need is a very simple, factual (not interpretative or evaluative) description of biblical criticism throughout time. This would be a significant help in understanding older texts as well as providing references for learning new interpretative skills. What I envision for an entry is:

Name of interpretative method/criticism
Brief description of the interpretative method
Questions asked by the method (See Open letter to Faithlife on overall direction for a broader introduction.)
Links to (a) top discussions of the method and (b) examples of the method in practice.

It is important that both Jewish and Christian methods be included. I would also suggest that Faithlife create an initial addition with an explicit invitation for additional entries from the users. The intent would be that professors could insure that there were entries appropriate to their courses.

Examples of prime resources from which to glean the information:

Hauser, Alan J., and Duane F. Watson, eds. A History of Biblical Interpretation: multivolume Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.
McKim, Donald K., ed. Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: InterVarsity Press, 2007.
Old, Hughes Oliphant. multi-volume. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Osborne, Grant R., and Stephen B. Woodward. Handbook for Bible Study. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979.
Reventlow, Henning Graf. History of Biblical Interpretation (multivolume). Edited by Susan Ackerman and Tom Thatcher. Translated by Leo G. Perdue. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.
Simonetti, Manlio. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
Taylor, Marion Ann, and Agnes Choi, eds. Handbook of Women Biblical Interpreters: A Historical and Biographical Guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.
Uffenheimer, Benjamin, and Henning Graf Reventlow, eds. Creative Biblical Exegesis: Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics through the Centuries. Vol. 59. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, and N. T. Wright, eds. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. London; Grand Rapids, MI: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005.
Zetterholm, Karin Hedner. Jewish Interpretation of the Bible: Ancient and Contemporary. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012.

Two observations: The chat bots are well-suited for creating summaries and questions making what would have been many hours of research. Rather, one needs someone who is good a judging the reasonableness and usefulness of the bot generated information - able to tweak the queries to improve responses that fail the quality control.

I have put some samples together as a proof-of-concept which I hope Logos expresses interest in as only they can make the necessary access/indexing adjustments to filfull my vision.

Some examples:

For a basic user who wishes to expand what they ask questions about:

For people who want to use their knowledge to generate interest in the text:

For people wondering what a specific criticism is to decide whether or not to purchase the Logos bundle:

For people interested in the emphasis of groups they respect in Bible interpretation:

For people interested in the history of interpretation/seminary classes

You get the idea. If you really want to see the whole prototype see Workflows by author with sources (logos.com)

The advantage of producing workflows rather than a book is that it can be updated/expanded on the fly.

Yes, the prototype is light on the documentation of the method and in consistency in naming. It also is very light on methods from outside the US and on denominations' methods where I know little about method.

1. Do you think this would work if given the appropriate user interface?

2. What would be your concerns?

3. What methods would you like to see added to the prototype if Logos doesn't step up and take over?

PROTOTYPE - Please read all the way through

Categories