Congratulations FL...but you shouldn't win.

Just noticed the blog article about the Lexham book that has become a finalist for a Christian Book Award. I read the excerpt and was floored by this statement.

Say what? Let's look at Lk. 11:42. Do you see Yeishuua` saying anything about the Pharisees following the letter of the law? You know why not? BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T!!! If they had been following Tohraah, He wouldn't have had any problem with their actions, period. Plain and simple, this a grotesque mischaracterization of what Yeishuua` was indicating in this confrontation. You know why? BECAUSE "justice and the love of God" ARE PART OF TOHRAAH! Yeishuua` was castigating and condemning the Pharisees for NOT keeping the law...not "for" following the law. This abominable false dichotomy exemplifies the kind of defiled and putrid bath beads Christianity has been leisurely soaking in for ages. It is a grotesque lie with dire consequences.

Am I overexaggerating? Am I wrong? Well, one only need to at the parallel scripture in Mt. 23:23 to see that this characterization of Lk. 11:42 is utterly miscast. See it? Yeishuua` explicitly says that justice and mercy ARE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW!! This award candidate's description is unspeakable malarkey. However, given the appetite that exists for this kind of distortion, I would say the book has an excellent chance of winning.

Take just a moment to contemplate the multiple dozens of people who have encountered this and were not just fully content to let it pass, but considered this laudable and worthy of commendation!

What next, Lexham? Going to start peddling square circles?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Well, first, Lexham didn't win. The professor did.

But I agree ... it's Christian scholarship, assigning the present to the past. Plus her students (Biola) can't really be that uninformed about Paul's new converts. Surely.

MJ. Smith

Going to start peddling square circles?

I thought they've done so for a very long time, given the variety of resources they carry, they can't all be right ... and some are neither factual or logical. One Amazon gave me for review and I could only make it through the first 23 pages it was so bad. The nice thing about Logos is that the people who enjoyed the book can still buy it and I can ignore it's existence.

I do find it interesting that the resource you mention is up for a Christian Book Award ... tells me something about their standards.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161538#Comment_1161538

I'm a thinking... this would make for a great discussion! Oh yeah!

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161590#Comment_1161590

I'm a thinking... this would make for a great discussion! Oh yeah!

I’m thinking why has this post been allowed? It goes against forum rules, but hey, I guess some get a break others don’t. Why am I not surprised 😂😂😂

DAL

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161591#Comment_1161591

I'm a thinking... this would make for a great discussion! Oh yeah!

I’m thinking why has this post been allowed? It goes against forum rules

DAL makes a good point.

However, the forums have long hosted Book Reviews of resources sold by Faithlife, so one could argue that David Paul has given a very passionate and brief negative book review of the work in question.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161591#Comment_1161591

Why am I not surprised

Because you're not surprised. He's discussing a 'book'. Cover, TOC, stuff like that. And since Logos caters to the proposed religious, the 'books' are very discuss-able. Like a current tome I'm hiccupping over, where the author has gone off the edge assigning late aramaic to Daniel. Only an idiot could do something so facile (I just made that up). Smiling.

David Carter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161602#Comment_1161602

DAL makes a good point.

However, the forums have long hosted Book Reviews of resources sold by Faithlife, so one could argue that David Paul has given a very passionate and brief negative book review of the work in question.

One could also argue that it's just a diatribe about a blog post. I don't believe he has actually read the book

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161607#Comment_1161607

One could also argue that it's just a diatribe about a blog post.

In that case, it would belong in the Logos Blog forum.

I don't believe he has actually read the book

In which case he would be like many people who post book reviews on Amazon and other places that collect book reviews.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161607#Comment_1161607

Indeed, I am responding to a blog post that includes an extended excerpt that FL posted on its website. Obviously, FL introduced this subject matter into its public environment. I'm addressing blatant inaccuracy introduced by FL. If this title wasn't published BY FL, I doubt I would have brought it up, since bad Bible study abounds, as MJ said, and I don't usually dispute it. Because this is a BIBLE software/publishing company, pretty much everything they do flirts with issues of doctrine and belief, but I'm addressing the issue primarily (though not solely) from FL's role as editor & publisher. This is a case of not only ignoring evidence and fabricating "facts", but permitting these errors to proceed unaddressed...only to have them (now in post-publication) continue being ignored, overlooked, and/or even considered meritable. If this were journalism rather than Bible study, there would be the sound of dropping shoes audibly echoing. Yes, it results in bad theology, but the problem is more fundamental than that. This isn't an issue of "opinion"--it's simply and flagrantly false, and demonstrably so. The award consideration only compounds the error storm across a wider swathe of culpability. Sadly, this particular error is ubiquitous and long-lived, which makes it all the more egregious.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161609#Comment_1161609

i know nothing about the author and never read the book. I don’t even know if the image is in context. I’m certainly not giving my own views on this subject.

But, that being said, it seems that the text shown in the OP is contrasting the approach of the Pharisees view of the Law with Jesus. Not the Law itself. We can of course debate whether his views of the Pharisees is correct (and I understand modern Jews disagree). But I think the objections of the OP don’t seem to address what was actually said.

my 2¢ anyway.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161609#Comment_1161609

Well it sounded like a negative complaint with a touch of theology which isn’t allowed in the forums. I made a comment about not agreeing with Doug Moo and I quickly got reported by someone who had nothing better to do and got an email by a self appointed forum moderator when in reality while I didn’t really agree with Moo on some stuff, I was actually recommending his Romans commentary. So go figure! Again, I’m not surprised! There are definitely double standards when it comes to certain posts by certain people.

DAL

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161639#Comment_1161639

Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.

The original post was definitively about a FL product and less clearly about a FL website. Whew, one down.

Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics.

I've always assumed this meant biblical study, theological studies, ... not statements of fact which usually belong to many disciplines. Was the post longer than necessary to make the point? Yes. Was the post filled with hyperbole? Yes. Did the post complicate reading with idiosyncratic typography - all caps, bold, ...? Yes. But, if you watch the forums, you will know that is the normal communication style of the original poster -- and the reason I often don't finish reading his posts if there is no question that needs answering or his position on a topic is not of personal interest.

I suspect that Faithlife unintentionally initiated this brouhaha by including a factually offensive quotation in the blog. Considering the amount of tagging that encourages us to trust FL on the literal meaning of the text, I suspect this is exactly the sort of thing that would be posted on the forums as a tagging error or bug were it within the tool. And Sean would respond with an explanation and/or correction. It is clear from the tone that this over-simplification is important to the OP although (or perhaps, because) is common.

Feel free to disagree with me, but the above is why I did not report the post as an abuse. Each of you who believe it to be an abuse are free to report it as such and leave it to FL to choose a response.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161637#Comment_1161637

i know nothing about the author and never read the book. I don’t even know if the image is in context. I’m certainly not giving my own views on this subject.

But, that being said, it seems that the text shown in the OP is contrasting the approach of the Pharisees view of the Law with Jesus. Not the Law itself. We can of course debate whether his views of the Pharisees is correct (and I understand modern Jews disagree). But I think the objections of the OP don’t seem to address what was actually said.

my 2¢ anyway.

I don't understand your post. The highlighted portion of the quoted passage in the OP contains two statements, both of which blatantly contradict multiple statements of Scripture.

the objections of the OP don’t seem to address what was actually said.

What was actually said: "the Pharisees focused on the law"

This is emphatically false, as Yeishuua` is constantly upbraiding them for contorting and ignoring the law so that they may keep their traditions. It is His number one charge against them. Josephus, who identified as a Pharisee, plainly says that it was the Sadducees who had the platform of strict obeisance to the law--the Pharisees were very amenable to novel and elastic "interpretations" of the law crafted to suit their own desires and objectives.

What was actually said: "the Pharisees focused on the law while neglecting God's love"

This is impossible by definition...that is, the Bible's own constantly emphasized definitions, only a smattering of which include 1 Jn. 5:3, Jn. 14:15, 15:10, Exo. 20:6, Deut. 5:10, 7:9, 11:1, 30:16, Josh. 22:5, Dan. 9:4, Jam. 2:8, Rom. 13:10, Gal 5:14. To be clear, "what was actually said" can't truly rise to the level of being doctrinal because it is ontologically and epistemically UNbiblical. It violates the Bible's repeatedly stated definitions because anyone neglecting love is inherently rejecting the law. It is impossible to "keep the law" and not love. THE PHARISEES DIDN'T KEEP TOHRAAH, and that was Yeishuua`'s primary and fundamental charge against them. Folks can look at Mk. 7:5-13 for themselves, but the key point is Mk. 7:8 where "the commandments of God" equals the law, which Yeishuua` declares they neglected in favor of men's (not YHWH's) traditions. In Mk. 7:13, He emphasizes that this is their habitual practice and thus the source of His ire. How can anyone read that and say that the Pharisees "kept/focused on" the law???? The exact opposite is true.

What was actually said: "Jesus condemns them for following the letter of the law"

As stated in the OP, this statement is false on its face. It could easily say something that doesn't flirt with dishonesty, but it doesn't. If the book stated, "Yeishuua` (or Jesus) condemns them for only following the law in the little things but not in the big, weightier things", that would have been entirely true, but, I strongly suspect, it also would not have left the particular flavor and aftertaste the author/editorial & publishing team/award grantors wish to imply.

Regardless of the manner or intention in which the highlighted statements were made, they easily meet the criterion of "practicing to deceive". They were crafted to draw (as in "sketch in" as opposed to "extract") a long-standing but nevertheless patently false distinction between "law" (that is, YHWH's expressed will) and "love/grace". The difference between what this award nominee and the Bible describe is dramatically drastic.

Yes, because of the book's subject matter, any discussion of it inevitably veers into religious and doctrinal discussion. My complaint isn't per se with the doctrinal interpretation and theological and eschatological outcomes, potentially tragic as they may be. It's with the blatant falsehoods...and that particularly in light of the potential laudation this work is poised to receive.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161686#Comment_1161686

I think you’re reading more into it than intended. But I think at this point, we’d be going into theological debate.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161709#Comment_1161709

I would be going into logic and linguistics [;)]

Interpretive Reasoning by Laurent Stern
Logic, Language, and Meaning, Volume 1: Introduction to Logic (Volume 1) by L. T. F. Gamut
Logic, Language, and Meaning, Volume 2: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar by L. T. F. Gamut

Both works (or their equivalents) should be prerequisites to hermeneutics and exegesis ... even when the text is a blog post or a forum post.

Gregory Lawhorn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161609#Comment_1161609

This isn't an issue of "opinion"--it's simply and flagrantly false, and demonstrably so.

Many disagree. I refer you to David Martyn Lloyd-Jones' excellent "Studies in the Sermon on the Mount".

What's more, Faithlife also sells Roman Catholic resources, prosperity "gospel" resources, and other false teachers and theologies (such as books by Frederick K. Price and Sarah Young), all of which are significantly more spiritually dangerous than a disagreement over whether the Pharisees followed the Law "to the letter" while missing the spirit of the Law, or completely missed the "letter of the Law." Those other false teachings and doctrines are also "simply and flagrantly false, and demonstrably so."

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161810#Comment_1161810

Gregory,

I find your examples of "false teachers and theologies" to be offensive, unkind and against the rules in this forum. Please consider editing your post to bring it in line with the overall spirit here, which I believe recognizes that there are different teachers and theologies, and different interpretations, and that all of use want to learn more and have to learn more, using Logos software and Logos resources to that end.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161810#Comment_1161810

Many disagree.

Indeed! Ah, the many...Mt. 7:12, 13; Mt. 7:21, 22, 23 etc. etc. etc.

Fwiw, the context of both of these scenarios is that "many" are not keeping YHWH's will/law.

What's more, Faithlife also sells Roman Catholic resources, prosperity "gospel" resources, and other false teachers and theologies (such as books by Frederick K. Price and Sarah Young), all of which are significantly more spiritually dangerous than a disagreement over whether the Pharisees followed the Law "to the letter" while missing the spirit of the Law, or completely missed the "letter of the Law." Those other false teachings and doctrines are also "simply and flagrantly false, and demonstrably so."

I think there is a difference in that FL doesn't publish those resources, and it is primarily their role as publisher that I am addressing. I have long advocated for Bart Ehrman resources to be available in Logos even though he is a nonbeliever. I have to know what he says if I am to understand what he says, and I must understand what he says before I can credibly attempt to refute him. That said, I would probably caution Lexham against publishing Ehrman. Publishing is quite akin to endorsing, particularly since publishers typically function as editors, thus participating in what ends up in the final product.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161818#Comment_1161818

OT:

I have long advocated for Bart Ehrman resources to be available in Logos even though he is a nonbeliever. I have to know what he says if I am to understand what he says, and I must understand what he says before I can credibly attempt to refute him. That said, I would probably caution Lexham against publishing Ehrman.

note that currently four books by Ehrman are sold by FL, one a PrePub shipping on Wednesday - just in case you missed it (none of those published by Lexham).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161826#Comment_1161826

note that currently four books by Ehrman are sold by FL, one a PrePub shipping on Wednesday - just in case you missed it (none of those published by Lexham).

Thank you...I did miss that.

Gregory Lawhorn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161813#Comment_1161813

Gregory,

I find your examples of "false teachers and theologies" to be offensive, unkind and against the rules in this forum. Please consider editing your post to bring it in line with the overall spirit here, which I believe recognizes that there are different teachers and theologies, and different interpretations, and that all of use want to learn more and have to learn more, using Logos software and Logos resources to that end.

First, I meant no offense. I believe that the groups I named (among others) are demonstrably unbiblical in their doctrine.

Second, Logos sells a fairly large and broad amount of resources which identity these groups (among others) as false and unbiblical, such as "The Roman Catholic Controversy" by James R. White.

Third, the original post promoted a particular theological opinion; it was not a discussion of how to use Logos, or what resources are available. My post was very much in the spirit of the OP's post. I know that such topics are banned, but when someone with the standing of MJ contributes, without warning the OP that the topic is contrary to the rules of the forum, who am I to disagree?

Thanks for your comment

David Carter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161833#Comment_1161833

I believe that the groups I named (among others) are demonstrably unbiblical in their doctrine.

Many disagree [8o|]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161810#Comment_1161810

Faithlife also sells Roman Catholic resources, prosperity "gospel" resources, and other false teachers and theologies (such as books by Frederick K. Price and Sarah Young), all of which are significantly more spiritually dangerous than a disagreement over whether the Pharisees followed the Law "to the letter" while missing the spirit of the Law, or completely missed the "letter of the Law."

You have been in the forums long enough to know that statements of this type are forbidden by the guidelines. Yes, I agree that Faithlife sells "spiritually dangerous" resources but I follow the guidelines and do not identify them out of respect for the many forum users who apparently purchase such resources.

Gregory Lawhorn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161841#Comment_1161841

Faithlife also sells Roman Catholic resources, prosperity "gospel" resources, and other false teachers and theologies (such as books by Frederick K. Price and Sarah Young), all of which are significantly more spiritually dangerous than a disagreement over whether the Pharisees followed the Law "to the letter" while missing the spirit of the Law, or completely missed the "letter of the Law."

You have been in the forums long enough to know that statements of this type are forbidden by the guidelines and only show your own hubris. Yes, I agree that Faithlife sells "spiritually dangerous" resources but I follow the guidelines and do not identify them out of respect for the many forum users who apparently purchase such resources.

I yield the ground, but not the argument. Have a blessed evening, all!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161833#Comment_1161833

Second, Logos sells a fairly large and broad amount of resources which identity these groups (among others) as false and unbiblical, such as "The Roman Catholic Controversy" by James R. White.

It also sells a large number of resources that show Catholicism to be Biblical ...and if you follow the reasoning and logic of the two bodies of literature you will find the two bodies are not equals in probable truthfulness.

I know that such topics are banned, but when someone with the standing of MJ contributes, without warning the OP that the topic is contrary to the rules of the forum, who am I to disagree?

Please read my post more carefully. I did not warn the OP that the topic was contrary to the rules of the forum because I do not believe it to be so. You are, in fact, disagreeing with me in a rather deceptive way -- good rhetoric, bad reasoning. Note also that in my post, I specifically invited people to disagree with me.

However, should someone attack your theological position in these forum, rest assured I will come to your defense ... without regard to my position on that theology. ...

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161818#Comment_1161818

I think there is a difference in that FL doesn't publish those resources, and it is primarily their role as publisher that I am addressing.

Faithlife does publish Catholic resources,* just in case you missed that. I suppose there's an argument to be made that Faithlife doesn't publish "Roman Catholic" (whatever that means) ones, though. [;)]

*See also 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, as well as this 2019 Lexham resource that deserves an honourable mention because its foreword and afterword are by Catholics.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161850#Comment_1161850

Off topic but we do need the New World’s Translation with interlinear. I could really use that in Logos. I have some sample pages that I need to study with JW’s and it has been very helpful, but it’d be nice if Logos offered it for research purposes 👍😁👌

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161853#Comment_1161853

Yeah David Wanat, it is the JW’s translation. I’m not one but it’s been helpful when studying with them since they’d rather use their own translation when studying. And since FL is all inclusive then this would be a great addition to their catalog 👍😁👌

DAL

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161873#Comment_1161873

Yeah David Wanat, it is the JW’s translation. I’m not one but it’s been helpful when studying with them since they’d rather use their own translation when studying. And since FL is all inclusive then this would be a great addition to their catalog 👍😁👌

DAL

Yeah, I can see the value in understanding what groups like the JW see when they read the Bible rather than assume their version is the same.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1162038#Comment_1162038

Yeah David Wanat, it is the JW’s translation. I’m not one but it’s been helpful when studying with them since they’d rather use their own translation when studying. And since FL is all inclusive then this would be a great addition to their catalog 👍😁👌

DAL

Yeah, I can see the value in understanding what groups like the JW see when they read the Bible rather than assume their version is the same.

Christian Discourse has a lengthy thread => Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ? (human belief filters what can be seen in any Bible).

Keep Smiling [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1162048#Comment_1162048

For a very interesting look at the translation of a single phrase see (99+) (PDF) "A Dark Speakyng": English Translations of 1 Corinthians 13:12 and What We Can See in Them | Curtis Gruenler - Academia.edu ... I highly recommend it as readable and related to translations we are all familar with.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1162050#Comment_1162050

For a very interesting look at the translation of a single phrase see (99+) (PDF) "A Dark Speakyng": English Translations of 1 Corinthians 13:12 and What We Can See in Them | Curtis Gruenler - Academia.edu ... I highly recommend it as readable and related to translations we are all familar with.

Wow, thanks!

MJ. Smith

Take just a moment to contemplate the multiple dozens of people who have encountered this and were not just fully content to let it pass, but considered this laudable and worthy of commendation!

It has been pointed out to me that this post takes for granted the method of Pandora’s Box Opened: An Examination and Defense of Historical-Critical Method and Its Master Practitioners | Logos Bible Software. Would our response be the same if we thought in the method of Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah | Logos Bible Software? Fascinating option to consider.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1162066#Comment_1162066

Thanks for the links Keep Smiling and MJ! Very helpful 👍😁👌

DAL

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1162400#Comment_1162400

Take just a moment to contemplate the multiple dozens of people who have encountered this and were not just fully content to let it pass, but considered this laudable and worthy of commendation!

It has been pointed out to me that this post takes for granted the method of Pandora’s Box Opened: An Examination and Defense of Historical-Critical Method and Its Master Practitioners | Logos Bible Software. Would our response be the same if we thought in the method of Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah | Logos Bible Software? Fascinating option to consider.

What the post (that is, moi) takes for granted can not be ascertained by anyone assuming they can discern what I take for granted. From what I can tell, the first book is a middlin' though ultimately positive perspective on hist-crit. My take on the Bible has a very, very low view of historical absolutism, especially as it insists on historical context as the "proper" domain of interpretation. As I've said plenty of times, my take on Scripture is that it is a prophetic book written by an Author fixated on communicating His will using the language of prophecy. In such a scenario, history (whatever that is, and speaking of taking things for granted, history is a phantom that people assume is somehow tangible) is simply not His concern, but rather His focus is expressed through principles elaborated through prophetic communication (that is, figurative language with actual, tangible application and results). To use some scholarly three dollar words, history is slavishly diachronic, while prophecy is utterly synchronic. The context of the Bible is the Bible's own language and expressions, found front to back and engaged in one giant lump. In the Bible, prophecy trumps all. So, is the taken-for-granted assumption regarding what the OP takes for granted inside out and backwards? Could be, but I wouldn't take it for granted.

I actually have the other two Tribble books from this collection in hard copy, and I have 2-3 other books from the set that Rhetorical Criticism is a part of in hard copy also. I actually might have that book, too, but I often lose track of what's in my tangible library.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1161826#Comment_1161826

Sometimes I am amused at how quickly people start throwing daggers.

Amazing. But I didn't mean to start anything.... just would love to get into a good discussion about the original topic....

mis disculpas!

Mike Binks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1162424#Comment_1162424

Sometimes I am amused at how quickly people start throwing daggers.

† † † † † †

.... just would love to get into a good discussion about the original topic....

mis disculpas!

Experience shows that the level of kindness required seems to evade this forum -- hence we choose to avoid unkindness.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1162421#Comment_1162421

What the post (that is, moi) takes for granted can not be ascertained by anyone assuming they can discern what I take for granted.

The two books referenced were simply examples of particular schools of Biblical criticism (study) for those forum users who might not recognize them solely by name. You are absolutely correct that I cannot discern what you are consciously taking for granted. What one can do, however, is discern what presuppositions are required for your argument to make sense ... which is all I was trying to say ... and all that was said to me to trigger my consideration of the issue in a different light.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1162424#Comment_1162424

Sometimes I am amused at how quickly people start throwing daggers.

Daggers??? All I did was clarify that something I said, which was described as taking a particular viewpoint for granted, actually was said from a perspective that holds a view almost the exact opposite of what was supposedly "taken for granted". The comment was about as hefty and pointy as a plastic butter knife. The only purpose and motivation of my comment was clarification. I have no problem at all with people disagreeing with what I say; I just want their disagreement to be based upon an accurate understanding and appraisal of my perspective.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1162534#Comment_1162534

To elaborate a bit further on my perspective regarding history, folks should note this: English-speaking Bible scholars describe the Hebrew scriptures as having four sections...the Law, the Histories, the Prophets, and the Writings. On the other hand, in the Hebrew-language tradition, the so-called Old Testament is referred to as TaNaKh:, which is an acronym word for Tohrahh (Instruction), N'bhiy'iym (Prophets), and K'tthuubhiym, (Writings). Notice that the Hebraic perspective includes only three divisions rather than the four used by scholars. The category of "the Histories" was added by scholars, because when they read Samuel and Kings they "see" historical narratives. Unfortunately, though, they literally "see" wrongly. Samuel and Kings are part of what is called "the Former Prophets", not the least reason being that the book of 1 Samuel (to take an example) is one of the most prophetically dense books in the Bible. It is hard to rest your toe anywhere in the text and not end up knee, hip, or neck deep in prophetic communication. This "innocent" mistake of recognition and description results in an angular error that compounds inevitably into ever more specious and spurious consequences. Perhaps the most damaging is the ultimate rejection of a prophetic and synchronic perspective in favor of the supposedly more legitimate historical and diachronic perspective. But make no mistake...the real and first mistake is calling prophecies "histories". It's akin to setting a magnet on the instrument panel of an airplane and setting out across the ocean, oblivious of the fact that your compass is not speaking truth. Things will not end well.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1162541#Comment_1162541

Notice that the Hebraic perspective includes only three divisions rather than the four used by scholars.

Where do you fit the structure of the early LXX and Peshitta codices into this history? I'm not disagreeing with your over-arching theological point ... I'm trying to fit the bits and pieces of manuscript history I know into it.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1162544#Comment_1162544

Notice that the Hebraic perspective includes only three divisions rather than the four used by scholars.

Where do you fit the structure of the early LXX and Peshitta codices into this history? I'm not disagreeing with your over-arching theological point ... I'm trying to fit the bits and pieces of manuscript history I know into it.

I suspect you want a simple and relatively basic answer, but that's not really possible. I tried answering it at least 2-3 times, but I've finally decided to stop. I can answer the question, but not here. Also, it's pretty intricate, which makes it difficult to be brief.