Please get this book in Logos. Sex and the Single Savior by Dale B. Martin:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0664230466/
Good recommendation. My impression regarding his books, is that he looks at 'interpretation', first at the semantic level, then usage variation, and then forced doctrinal.
I doubt, though, FL has its old mojo of a wide-ranging library. Today's reading (in Logos no less) is Christian scholarship as anti-Semitic. Quite interesting.
I am not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that Logos considers Christian scholarship to be antisemitic? Or are you saying that the Christian scholarship in Logos is antisemitic? Or…?
"Today's reading" refers to a book:
Apocalypticism, Anti-Semitism and the Historical Jesus: Subtexts in Criticism
Not trying to divert from your recommendation; only illustrate a wide library is good.
That looks like an interesting book from what I read of the Logos preview. However, it is not anywhere near the top of my list of books that I want to read after I finish the ones that I am currently reading, so I will just have to stick with the preview that Logos provides. I see the hardback version of the book is $200. If one is studying the historical Jesus, that book looks like a good one to start with for understanding biases that scholars may bring to their works.
I'm about 1/2 way thru .... reading the Logos product page, it sounds like a different book!
Amy-Jill Levine has a good chapter, "Jesus, Sex, and Eschatology'.
But basically, the issue is scholars adopting a view, without embracing its logical follow-up. Your choice seemed similar.
I'm about 1/2 way thru .... reading the Logos product page, it sounds like a different book! Amy-Jill Levine has a good chapter, "Jesus, Sex, and Eschatology'. But basically, the issue is scholars adopting a view, without embracing its logical follow-up. Your choice seemed similar.
I‘m not sure I understand how or why you’re saying that Dale Martin puts forth a doctrinal view without embracing its logical follow-up. What specifically did you mean by that?
The comment on Dale Martin was relative to his books (how meaning is assigned to writings).
The comment on scholars was the book I'm now reading.
And the common thread is that neither is generally smiled on by the Logosian public. Only a broad library can justify these type volumes.
The comment on Dale Martin was relative to his books (how meaning is assigned to writings). The comment on scholars was the book I'm now reading. And the common thread is that neither is generally smiled on by the Logosian public. Only a broad library can justify these type volumes.
I know that in the book I am requesting Martin critiques textual foundationalism, which is his term for the grammatical historical method. But I don’t know what you are implying is the logical outcome of this/his view.
I’ve read the book and it just shows how people can accommodate the Bible to their own views of what’s becoming popular now days. Many authors want to play politicians. And trust me, I read it with an open mind. I shelved it in a storage bin in case I need to reference it. OK book to amuse readers.
DAL
I’ve read the book and it just shows how people can accommodate the Bible to their own views of what’s becoming popular now days. Many authors want to play politicians. And trust me, I read it with an open mind. I shelved it in a storage bin in case I need to reference it. OK book to amuse readers. DAL
Considering the number of topics Martin deals with in the book and the vast amount of scriptural support/references he cites for his opinions/positions, I find it much more on the scholarly side than the amusement side even if I may not buy all his arguments.
it just shows how people can accommodate the Bible to their own views of what’s becoming popular now days.
That accusation can be wide ranging (I'd make it relative to the evangels, these days .... smiling). And I do like Ann(?) Nyland's NT translation (primarily her notes on the greek). Selective discussion relative to doctrine is a big turn-off for me.
But that said, the 'rule' I always follow, is how would it 'play' as the disciples asked for shelter in small Galilee villages (the ones where the disciples didn't have to shake their feet and leave ... as a child I tried it out). The 2nd 'rule' is how would it work with Peter and his wife. Maybe Paul could handle sticks and stones, but not likely ones spouse. One big reason I'm a Literalist (vs churchmen and their doctrines).
Maybe not amusing (though some things are) I would say more like too liberal for my taste. Liberals can be good scholars also.😉
