Chavrusa study - how to practice Scripture study in a Talmudic manner using Logos/Verbum

MJ. Smith · 2025-03-28T22:16:33+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

Berakhot 63b: "The Torah is only acquired in a group."
Ta’anit 7a: "Two scholars sharpen one another."

With its shared documents feature, Logos/Verbum should be a platform that could be used for pairs of individuals to debate Scripture interpretation … and provide documentation via links supporting their positions. This could be either in a Chavrusa style or Quaestiones Disputatae style. Has anyone seen any efforts in this direction? I was thinking of those who want to debate topics in Logos and would be willing to do so in a reasonable, framed way rather than random potshots.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

NichtnurBibelleser

That sounds very interesting. But how would you draw the line in regard of the Community Guideline

Avoid Theological Debate

Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums or focused groups intended for these kinds of discussions.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1364584#Comment_1364584

I don't understand what you are trying to say - that using Logos for a particular class of traditional Bible study methods is controversial? If so, I fail to see how. It certainly is not theological - the methods are used across the entire breadth of possible theologies specifically because it is a teaching approach not a particular theology or even hermeneutic. Please explain to me why you think the theological debate guideline could come into play. I'm not suggesting that we use the forums for this style of study; I am asking if anyone has seen the Logos ecosystem used for this style of study - most likely in the context of a very limited sharing group.

NichtnurBibelleser

I am asking if anyone has seen the Logos ecosystem used for this style of study

Ok, now I get the point.

debate Scripture interpretation

The first thought reading this was a Luther-vs-Cajetan-like exchange. I.e. how would that NOT lead to defend denominationally biased reasoning?

MJ. Smith

@NichtnurBibelleser

The first thought reading this was a Luther-vs-Cajetan-like exchange. I.e. how would that NOT lead to defend denominationally biased reasoning?

Ah, a connection that would have never occurred to me … Thanks for explaining.