[B-Greek] Appropriate list-discussion: parameters
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Aug 20 16:46:48 EDT 2003
B-Greekers:
While most of those who post to B-Greek with some regularity have a pretty
good sense of what sorts of questions and comments are appropriate for this
list and what sorts are not, there is some measure of confusion about the
parameters. We do spell out general guidelines in the FAQ
(http://ibiblio.org/bgreek.faq.txt), but when we say in that document,
"B-Greek is not a forum for general Bible issues, except insofar as they
may bear specifically upon interpretation of a particular Greek text.
Neither is it a forum for general or specific hermeneutical or theological
issues," it is evidently not clear to a few what is meant by crossing the
line into hermeneutical or theological issues.
There's actually a relatively simple test that any list-member may use to
gauge the probability of his/her question or comment being deemed
appropriate:
"Does the question or comment focus upon the Greek text of a biblical
passage AS A GREEK TEXT?"
If the question or comment could just as well be asked regarding any
translation of that Biblical passage into the writer's own language, then
it's almost certainly not properly a B-Greek question or comment.
Within this present week there have been two occasions of moderators'
concern over items of list-discussion, one over the question of PEIRASMOS,
the second over "Two statements in John's Gospel." I'll take these up
hUSTERON PROTERON ("the last first"):
The original question with the subject header, "Two statements in John's
Gospel", cited the Greek text of two passages and asked whether or not
these two texts contradicted one another. It should be noted that this was
NOT a proper question for B-Greek (1) because any English translation of
these passages could have been cited and the same question asked: what the
Greek text of the two verses means wasn't in dispute--the question
concerned the implications of an agreed-upon understanding of what the
Greek text means; (2) the question raised a hermeneutical issue about these
two texts in John: in order to answer the question one must make certain
assumptions about the nature of the Biblical text (its authorship, dating,
historical context, its authority as an inspired and/or coherent organic
unit, etc., etc.) and one must employ a method that is consistent with the
assumptions that one holds. BUT list-members hold a VARIETY of assumptions
about the nature of the Biblical text and employ DIFFERENT methods of
interpretation consistent with their particular assumptions. Now these
hermeneutical perspectives are usually matters of very strong conviction,
so much so that people readily take offense at straightforward assertions
that run counter to their own hermeneutical perspectives. I myself
responded first to that question, very naively, as was later pointed out,
and I regret having done so; I ought to have rejected the question or
simply underscored Mitch Larramore's solicitation of off-list responses.
After responding to the question myself, I could hardly be surprised at
another response that overtly called attention to the hermeneutical nature
of the question and proceeded to answer it on the basis of one set of
hermeneutical assumptions.
The thread on PEIRASMOS became problematic when the discussion of James
1:13 passed beyond the question of the meaning of the Greek word into
formulation of a Biblical doctrine regarding temptation consistent with the
text of James 1:13; in this instance (1) focus on the Greek text as such
was lost; (2) hermeneutical and theological assumptions entered into play
regarding the unity of the Biblical or NT corpus and, as was pointed out,
theological assumptions of a later era were brought to bear upon the text
and the entire Biblical corpus as the text's context. In defense of my
warning against continuation it may be said that what we're doing on
B-Greek is Exegesis. In fact, however, we're only doing the first
"spade-work" stage of exegesis on B-Greek: trying to ascertain, in terms on
which all or almost all of us who have some level of competence in Greek
agree, exactly what the Greek text as a Greek text means. Real exegesis as
it is usually taught goes beyond that to broader levels of contextual
interpretation and interpretation in terms of the cultural context and the
Biblical corpus as a whole, certainly including doctrinal implications. BUT
on B-Greek we don't go beyond that first "spade-work" stage. Even there we
occasional have problems understanding each other, perhaps because of
differing assumptions that impinge upon how we think the Greek text CAN
mean. We should not delude ourselves into supposing that reading the
Biblical Greek text is a discipline based upon exact science. But we should
try, I think, to be as disciplined as we can in the process of reading the
Biblical Greek text.
I hope that these comments on this week's problematic threads will, rather
than making things appear still more fuzzy, be helpful to those who want to
understand what our parameters are. You must realize, if you haven't
already, that we who manage the list do make an effort to get things right
and do things rightly, but often enough we just muddle through.
At any rate, let me reiterate the key item stated at the outset, the test
question regarding whether a proposed question or comment falls within the
list's parameters:
"Does the question or comment focus upon the Greek text of a biblical
passage AS A GREEK TEXT?"
If the question or comment could just as well be asked regarding any
translation of that Biblical passage into the writer's own language, then
it's almost certainly not properly a B-Greek question or comment.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Co-Chair, B-Greek List
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list