A decade long itch I will finally ask a.k.a. a potentially impolite question

Warning: this question does have a distinctive viewpoint which is not evangelical. It should be clear from my decades on the forums that I am fascinated by the variety of translation/interpretation/hermeneutics/exegesis methods available in Logos. I can assure you that my library reflects this interest. I have learned that the historical-grammatical method is a popular critical method as least among the evangelical forum users. But at the same time, I have been concerned about Logos' claims of original language study for lay people who have never studied the original languages. So the question I've never quite asked is what background in the "grammatical" portion of "historical-grammatical" does the average Bible College/Seminary require? [I love it. I accidentally typed George's "Cemetery" rather than seminary.]

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

I'm not sure what 'evangelical' connects to? In another time and place, it was what we now call 'old line protestant'. A century has simply produced automation of methods. But the nit-picking of the text, as Logos thrills to, is like over-loading the dissonent frequencies of synths.

As much as the recent 'academic' claims are made vs Logos, modern Bible software barely rises above morphs and vocabulary and frequency diagrams. The tools are not there, for phrasing, author matching, usage trending, etc. (but available beyond the hallowed Logosian walls).

I always felt George had become bored with grammatical, critical, historical, anything? A cemetary of spirituality.

Mike Childs

I cannot speak of other seminaries, but at Asbury I was required to take two semesters of Greek which did not count towards my degree, not even as an elective. In addition to that, I took additional courses in Greek exegesis on top of the required language courses. I also took a few courses in Greek exegesis. In the exegesis of the Greek text, we were required to be able to translate and to deal with the grammar of the Greek text without using any aids of reference books.

I also took some courses in Hebrew. One day in Hebrew class, while translating before the class, I infamously landed Noah's on the moon. It was Genesis 8:4. And I forgot that the Hebrew word for "moon" and "month" were the same. Up until day, we had only had the word in our vocabulary for "moon", and I didn't do my homework the night before.

But I understand that they are not quite as strict on these matters as they were in the late 1970's. I understand that students no longer walk two miles from housing to the classes, uphill both ways any more.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1307704#Comment_1307704

I understand that students no longer walk two miles from housing to the classes, uphill both ways any more.

I remember my parents being annoyed when their favorite Bible college built dorms with computer wiring (pre-internet) in each room. They thought it would make the students to soft for real life missions and churches.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1307701#Comment_1307701

I always felt George had become bored with grammatical, critical, historical, anything?

Let's just say that while I've not made a thing about it in the forums, I find pre-digested morphology as distasteful as George found interlinears. That is not to say that I don't love the powerful searches they make possible.

I'm not sure what 'evangelical' connects to?

It is primarily, but not exclusively, from evangelical sources that I learned to associate the historical-grammatical method with evangelical scholarship. Give me the evidence and I'll readily change my mind. I've just ordered How to Read the Bible: Cox, Harvey: 9780062343161: Amazon.com: Books for a mid-to-late 20th century view for an integrated narrative-historical-activist method.

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1307717#Comment_1307717

From a Seventh-day Adventist Approach to scripture.

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1307933#Comment_1307933

Here is the table of contents for the first book in the list.

Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach

Chapter I

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation

—Alberto R. Timm

Chapter II

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics

—John T. Baldwin

Chapter III

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture

—Frank M. Hasel

Chapter IV

Revelation and Inspiration

—Fernando Canale

Chapter V

The Authority of Scripture

—Peter M. van Bemmelen

Chapter VI

The Text and Canon of Scripture

—Gerald A. Klingbeil

Chapter VII

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

—Ekkehardt Müller

Chapter VIII

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually

—Ganoune Diop

Chapter IX

Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative

—Greg A. King

Chapter X

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature

—Gerhard Pfandl and Ángel M. Rodríguez

Chapter XI

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

—Richard M. Davidson

Chapter XII

Interpretation of the Gospels and Epistles

—George E. Rice

Chapter XIII

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Parables, and Allegories

—Tom Shepherd

Chapter XIV

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic

—Jon K. Paulien

Chapter XV

Hermeneutics and Culture

—Lael O. Caesar

Chapter XVI

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics

—Ron du Preez

Chapter XVII

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

—Gerhard Pfandl

Appendix A

Methods of Bible Study

Appendix B

The Use of the Modified Version of the Historical-Critical Approach by Adventist Scholars

—Ángel M. Rodríguez

Reid, George W., ed. 2006. Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach. Vol. 1. Biblical Research Institute Studies. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1307934#Comment_1307934

I see I am not getting responses like Introduction to Linguistics or Introduction to Grammar or something similar. Because of the preceding period when philology was a significant part of Bible interpretation/exegesis, I expected a bit more.

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1307955#Comment_1307955

Introduction to Greek and Intermediate Greek. Now students have to take Hebrew.

Basic hermeneutic is Look at the original language and translate/interpret in the historical context of the time the text was written.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1307983#Comment_1307983

preaching schools I know of.... All require minimum of 2 semesters of Greek and Hebrew. Some require 4 semesters.

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1307717#Comment_1307717

I find pre-digested morphology as distasteful as George found interlinears.

which grammar and morphology would you recommend for Greek students? Logos has several of them, Which would you consider to be the best and why?

Christian Alexander

So the question I've never quite asked is what background in the "grammatical" portion of "historical-grammatical" does the average Bible College/Seminary require?

Very little at Undergrad and not much at graduate. I did my studies at Liberty University, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Faulkner University and Evangel University

(1) One can misinterpret Bible truths, (2) or one can misinterpret one's situation and apply the incorrect Biblical cure, even if the principles themselves are valid and come from God's Word. With (1), you have a cultist who believes the Bible teaches salvation by works, which has a variety of bad consequences. I a currently reading Jens Zimmerman's Recovering Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian Theory of Interpretation. And unlike T. F. Torrance's book Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics (which I thoroughly benefited from, of course, especially in serving the purpose of providing a general theory of hermeneutics that, indeed, seeks to present a truly principled christocentric hermeneutic. Zimmerman's book, and brief development of Luther has helped to affirm the analysis. I had a professor once who said we should simply say “normative logical interpretation” since we read and interpret the Bible using language the way we normally do in every day life. I think you would benefit from this source. https://derekzrishmawy.com/2012/08/09/g-k-beale-on-the-difference-between-a-literal-and-a-biblical-hermeneutic-of-old-testament-prophecies/ Tim Keller advocates “to preach the gospel every time is to preach Christ every time, from every passage.”

I see I am not getting responses like Introduction to Linguistics or Introduction to Grammar or something similar. Because of the preceding period when philology was a significant part of Bible interpretation/exegesis, I expected a bit more.

I wish that waa te case. I had friends in Bible college take some of these classes.