I realized Logos doesn't have any of the works of two noteworthy scholars whose names begin with Bar-- and whom I used to confuse for each other, though they are quite different: Jerram Barrs and James Barr.
[CORRECTION: They do have 3 works by Barrs in Vyrso.]
By Jerram Barrs:
I have advocated for James Barr's work in the past, particularly the first listed here--The Semantics of Biblical Language. ALL of these should already be available in Logos.
[Y]
I have advocated for James Barr's work in the past, particularly the first listed here--The Semantics of Biblical Language.
It was your thread here that inspired me to dig up a list of all of Barr's works to suggest, and that's partly why I listed it first (it was also first chronologically).
I'd definitely be interested in these resources in Logos.
That's Barr-y interesting.
Larry Hurtado had a good 50th anniversary blog article, which I copied out of context, since it's so germaine to Logos (hmmm ... BSL ... shhhh ... MJ's asleep).
'The basic points that Barr sought to make were, at the time of his book’s appearance, not well understood among biblical scholars. Sadly, I fear that this remains the case. Too many scholars (and so their students) still take an approach in which Hebrew or Greek words are treated as having fixed meanings, and so understanding texts is essentially a process of totting up a suitable dictionary meaning of all the words of their sentences. It is still news to many that the fundamental semantic unit is not the “word” but the sentence, and that “words” (lexical entries) acquire a specific meaning when deployed in sentences. Likewise, scholars often still don’t understand that word-constructions often take on their own meaning that is not the sum of the parts (e.g., “hot dog” isn’t the sum of the meanings of “hot” and “dog”!). '
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/50th-anniversary-barrs-semantics-of-biblical-language/
The Guardian also had a good obituary article back in 2006. Always checking out the obits.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2006/nov/08/guardianobituaries.obituaries1
That's Barr-y interesting. Larry Hurtado had a good 50th anniversary blog article, which I copied out of context, since it's so germaine to Logos (hmmm ... BSL ... shhhh ... MJ's asleep). 'The basic points that Barr sought to make were, at the time of his book’s appearance, not well understood among biblical scholars. Sadly, I fear that this remains the case. Too many scholars (and so their students) still take an approach in which Hebrew or Greek words are treated as having fixed meanings, and so understanding texts is essentially a process of totting up a suitable dictionary meaning of all the words of their sentences. It is still news to many that the fundamental semantic unit is not the “word” but the sentence, and that “words” (lexical entries) acquire a specific meaning when deployed in sentences. Likewise, scholars often still don’t understand that word-constructions often take on their own meaning that is not the sum of the parts (e.g., “hot dog” isn’t the sum of the meanings of “hot” and “dog”!). '
These "let me set you straight" scholars such as Barr and Carson and Hurtado kinda irk me. So confident they know better...and if it weren't for the evidence otherwise, perhaps they just might. [8-)]
From Wikipedia:
Why was a sliced roll used? Because the sausages were too hot to hold otherwise.
Put that in your meat grinder and chew it, Hurtado.
[^o)]
