http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/06/de-wette-witter-and-wit-a-ten-point-round-up-of-the-blogs/ an everyday tale of stardust, spit and spirit Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:27:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/06/de-wette-witter-and-wit-a-ten-point-round-up-of-the-blogs/comment-page-1/#comment-80 clayboy Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:28:51 +0000 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/06/de-wette-witter-and-wit-a-ten-point-round-up-of-the-blogs/#comment-80 Sorry if I misunderstood you on that point. Incidentally, I'm not sure that Paul's use of OT isn't so diverse that it would be hard to say what was a special case and what was "normal" Sorry if I misunderstood you on that point. Incidentally, I’m not sure that Paul’s use of OT isn’t so diverse that it would be hard to say what was a special case and what was “normal”

]]> http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/06/de-wette-witter-and-wit-a-ten-point-round-up-of-the-blogs/comment-page-1/#comment-79 Nijay Gupta Sun, 21 Jun 2009 05:15:39 +0000 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/06/de-wette-witter-and-wit-a-ten-point-round-up-of-the-blogs/#comment-79 Thanks for mentioning my review. I did not intend to criticize allegory. Rather, I think there are many nowadays discussing whether the modern believer can apply the same techniques as the apostles to the OT (e.g. Childs, W. Kaiser, Enns, Hays, Frances Young, etc...). Personally, I am not concerned with Paul's use of allegory. The more important question for us is what the limits are to its use. I don't think Fee was trying to criticize allegory, but, rather, was intending to discuss the fact that the Sarah/Haggar discourse may be a special case of Paul's use of the OT. Thanks for mentioning my review. I did not intend to criticize allegory. Rather, I think there are many nowadays discussing whether the modern believer can apply the same techniques as the apostles to the OT (e.g. Childs, W. Kaiser, Enns, Hays, Frances Young, etc…). Personally, I am not concerned with Paul’s use of allegory. The more important question for us is what the limits are to its use. I don’t think Fee was trying to criticize allegory, but, rather, was intending to discuss the fact that the Sarah/Haggar discourse may be a special case of Paul’s use of the OT.

]]> http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/06/de-wette-witter-and-wit-a-ten-point-round-up-of-the-blogs/comment-page-1/#comment-78 clayboy Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:50:47 +0000 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/06/de-wette-witter-and-wit-a-ten-point-round-up-of-the-blogs/#comment-78 I did indeed mean the specific de Wette - Wellhausen thing, so I don't think this is a misreading. However, I think quite a bit of everything else owes something to that outline. It seems, from his comments, that John Hobbins who is far more knowledgeable than I am, is implying the same. I did indeed mean the specific de Wette – Wellhausen thing, so I don’t think this is a misreading. However, I think quite a bit of everything else owes something to that outline. It seems, from his comments, that John Hobbins who is far more knowledgeable than I am, is implying the same.

]]> http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/06/de-wette-witter-and-wit-a-ten-point-round-up-of-the-blogs/comment-page-1/#comment-77 Kevin P. Edgecomb Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:34:44 +0000 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/06/de-wette-witter-and-wit-a-ten-point-round-up-of-the-blogs/#comment-77 This "tried to do away with" is a misreading unless by "outline" you mean specifically the de Wettian dialectic as expanded by Wellhausen. Nor was I attempting to do anything in merely three paragraphs and a few irrelevant comments. It is a simple, explicit fact that anti-Judaism and antisemitism lie at the roots of various tenets of modern Biblical Studies. Whatever one wishes to do with that information is up to oneself. I reject it them. Others can do as their own moral compass leads them. But my rejection is not a rejection of the entirety of the work that has been done in the last 200 years. Such a reading of what I wrote is absurd, and not worthy of reply. This “tried to do away with” is a misreading unless by “outline” you mean specifically the de Wettian dialectic as expanded by Wellhausen. Nor was I attempting to do anything in merely three paragraphs and a few irrelevant comments. It is a simple, explicit fact that anti-Judaism and antisemitism lie at the roots of various tenets of modern Biblical Studies. Whatever one wishes to do with that information is up to oneself. I reject it them. Others can do as their own moral compass leads them. But my rejection is not a rejection of the entirety of the work that has been done in the last 200 years. Such a reading of what I wrote is absurd, and not worthy of reply.

]]>