which area of the New Testament would you prefer to study at a PhD level?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:27:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  which area of the New Testament would you prefer to study at a PhD level?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: which area of the New Testament would you prefer to study/research at a PhD level?
#1
the synoptic gospels (incl. Acts)
 
#2
Johannine Christianity
 
#3
Paul and Pauline theology
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 15

Author Topic: which area of the New Testament would you prefer to study at a PhD level?  (Read 1125 times)
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 05, 2014, 10:07:10 PM »

my answer up until a few months ago would have been the synoptics, though I've devoted a lot of time to Paul over the past few months.  I know almost nothing about John and find all of it to be a strange puzzle - though no less fascinating.
Logged
ILoveTheSmellOfTheSenate
Rookie
**
Posts: 19


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2014, 10:19:34 PM »

You have to choose between the teachings of the different books of the New Testament, as if their teachings differed? 

That is like asking, "Would you rather study equations of lines in a) Standard Form or in b) Y-intercept form?"

I am not sure how I would react to a blind teacher, PhD or otherwise, trying to tell me there was a substantive difference between the two...it's the same thing just stated a different way.

Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2014, 10:52:00 PM »

Johannine.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2014, 11:40:21 PM »

You have to choose between the teachings of the different books of the New Testament, as if their teachings differed?
At the PhD level, you're not going to be doing your dissertation on anything other than a fairly narrow area.  Indeed, for the topic of a dissertation, the three given emphases are all too broad.  I do note that the non-Pauline/Johanine epistles seem to have been left out as a possible topic.  Granted, unless one goes into non-canonical epistles, there isn't that much to cover: Hebrews, James, 1&2 Peter, and Jude.
Logged
ILoveTheSmellOfTheSenate
Rookie
**
Posts: 19


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2014, 12:13:33 AM »

You have to choose between the teachings of the different books of the New Testament, as if their teachings differed?
At the PhD level, you're not going to be doing your dissertation on anything other than a fairly narrow area.

I guess I would need an example to see how that could work.  As it is, it seems very oxymoronic to me to do a dissertation on a narrow part of the NT.  Since the NT is written to believers in the church age, a time when the “culmination of the ages has come” (1Cor 10:11), when the hidden symbolisms of the OT have been revealed in Christ…expounding upon a narrow part of the NT without bouncing it off the rest of scripture is tantamount to taking it out of context and placing it in a vacuum.

It seems much more logical to me to do a dissertation by picking a single topic and tracing that one topic through the bible from beginning to end, explaining the role the topic plays in the overall context of the bible and why it is applicable to Christian instruction.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2014, 12:26:27 AM »

It seems much more logical to me to do a dissertation by picking a single topic and tracing that one topic through the bible from beginning to end, explaining the role the topic plays in the overall context of the bible and why it is applicable to Christian instruction.

what you're describing is known as a "systematic theology", which is the sort of thing one writes after being awarded a PhD.
Logged
ILoveTheSmellOfTheSenate
Rookie
**
Posts: 19


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2014, 12:39:11 AM »

It seems much more logical to me to do a dissertation by picking a single topic and tracing that one topic through the bible from beginning to end, explaining the role the topic plays in the overall context of the bible and why it is applicable to Christian instruction.
what you're describing is known as a "systematic theology", which is the sort of thing one writes after being awarded a PhD.

Not to be argumentative, but didn’t the writers of the NT expect their audience to be able to understand what you’re calling a "systematic theology"?  Isn’t all NT writing written in what you describe as systematic theology form? 

example:  When the NT names a topic and then quotes repeatedly from the OT for reference regarding that topic, isn’t the writer penning his letter in systematic theology form?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2014, 12:50:54 AM »
« Edited: November 06, 2014, 01:07:03 AM by © tweed »

I know who you are, so it's prudent not to engage in a drawn-out debate about your believe in the Bible (or one of the many bibles, at least) as innerant, God-breathed and thus univocal.  you've proven the solidity of your belief that the 4th Century Christians got it totally right by picking the Canon that they did.

however, a few things:

Since the NT is written to believers in the church age

"believers" is not a single category, and was not in the first Century.  the fact that parts of the Pauline epistles are written in polemical style -- take Paul's beef with Peter over food laws in Galatians 2, for example.  there were diverse beliefs among the early Christians that caused significant arguments and even church 'splits' - or else Paul would not have spoken of the need for unity.. disagreements over the food laws, whether the Mosaic Law had to be kept, whether Gentile converts would be circumcised (or evangelized at all...)

we can take the Epistle of James as an argument against Pauline theology, for example.  James (who may have been brother of Jesus James) is believed to have stayed in Jerusalem while Paul, self-apointed "apostle set apart by God for preaching to the Gentiles" went all around the Mediterranean.  James is written much like old-school, Solomonesque wisdom literature, and James may have kept the Mosaic law and Torah.

when the hidden symbolisms of the OT have been revealed in Christ…expounding upon a narrow part of the NT without bouncing it off the rest of scripture is tantamount to taking it out of context and placing it in a vacuum.

Christological exegesis is what this is, and unless you presuppose the Canon was God-ordained from the start (we know that you do), it is profoundly out of context to read the Pentateuch exclusively using Christ as the key hidden message behind all of it.


I find the inerrancy/God-breathed/necessarily univocal hermenutic to be destructive to an attempt to read the Bible for what it is -- which is, a collection of texts written over the span of maybe 1500 years, by dozens of authors, all, in their unique ways, bearing witness to the God that they felt and knew.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2014, 12:59:40 AM »
« Edited: November 06, 2014, 01:02:01 AM by © tweed »

Not to be argumentative, but didn’t the writers of the NT expect their audience to be able to understand what you’re calling a "systematic theology"?
 Isn’t all NT writing written in what you describe as systematic theology form?  

example:  When the NT names a topic and then quotes repeatedly from the OT for reference regarding that topic, isn’t the writer penning his letter in systematic theology form?

in the light of Christ's death and resurrection, the early Christians that would give rise to the NTwere certain that something earth-shattering had happened, but were not sure exactly what.  the story of early Christianity (and, for that much ever since) is to attempt to understand what was revealed on the cross as best we can.

so, no, they did not have a post-Resurrection Christological theology, they were struggling to develop it.  the best example we have in the NT of an explicit systematic theology is of course Romans.  he does cite and echo Hebrew Scripture in expression of his belief that the one YHWH of Israel had to be understood afresh in light of the cross.  if this was so obvious to the people he was writing to he wouldn't have wasted time fleshing it out.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2014, 01:04:58 AM »

we should note that we're using massive anachronisms in this discussion.  'theology' didn't exist as an independent discipline we'd recognize until Christianity became Romanized.  the distinction between public and private life was much less clear.  the line between 'religion' and 'politics' did not exist (Caesar was the Son of God too).  and so on.
Logged
ILoveTheSmellOfTheSenate
Rookie
**
Posts: 19


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2014, 01:16:35 AM »
« Edited: November 06, 2014, 01:18:31 AM by ILoveTheSmellOfTheSenate »

[Setting aside what is considered proper canon and what is not (my theology can be derived in its entirety whether we are only using a Catholic bible, or a protestant bible, or the Dead Sea scrolls, or the Jewish OT)]…

I find the inerrancy/God-breathed/necessarily univocal hermenutic to be destructive to an attempt to read the Bible for what it is -- which is, a collection of texts written over the span of maybe 1500 years, by dozens of authors, all, in their unique ways, bearing witness to the God that they felt and knew.

Hey, I just believe the bible is the inspired word of God…written down by men as they were guided by the Holy Spirit.  And you must know that my viewpoint is shared by Jesus and every writer of the NT, because I adopted their viewpoint of scripture.  If you disagree with that viewpoint, then I think you need to read the passages where Jesus and the writers expressed their view of the origins of scripture.

Furthermore, I believe the bible is to be read in a way that makes its message transferrable to every language on earth so that it can be preached to all nations as Christ explicitly instructed…so I am by no means beholden to a particular language or version of translation (though I am limited, knowing only English).
Logged
ILoveTheSmellOfTheSenate
Rookie
**
Posts: 19


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2014, 02:47:51 AM »

 
we should note that we're using massive anachronisms in this discussion.  'theology' didn't exist as an independent discipline we'd recognize until Christianity became Romanized.  the distinction between public and private life was much less clear.  the line between 'religion' and 'politics' did not exist (Caesar was the Son of God too).  and so on.

Why do you get hung up on whether or not they had identified disciplines?     Don’t you believe people can patterns in the way that they go about arguing without having to have studied methods of argument?  If that were the case, no one could explain anything at all without first taking a class teaching them how to explain things.  Whether they were aware of the method they were using is irrelevant.

And you’re misrepresenting the disagreement between Peter and Paul in Gal ch2.  You’re attempting to paint it as if they had differing doctrines, but it doesn’t state Peter and Paul disagreed on doctrine.  To the contrary it said Paul confronted Peter because Peter withdrew from the Gentiles when he noticed the legalistic Jews were observing them.  It explicitly states Peter was being “hypocritical”, meaning Peter’s withdrawal from the Gentiles contradicted what Peter himself believed…So Paul and Peter were on the same page theologically, Paul just had to set Peter straight when Peter lacked the courage to practice what he believed (in this case, that Jews could associate and eat with the Gentiles).

---

Yes, I understand many of the churches in the 1st Century had messed up practices which contradicted the faith – hence the reason many of the letters of the NT were written in the first place – to correct the practices in many of the churches.  (Likewise, there are many differences today among Christianity)…but just because there wasn’t complete harmony in belief among the churches, that doesn’t mean the NT has to be out of harmony with itself and self-contradictory.

So, as the apostles traveled from country to country, they would win followers to Christ and help the new converts set up churches (many of which met in homes), then the apostles would move on to the next city.  So, being left alone and without apostle supervision for long stretches of time, it is no surprise problems and heresies crept into many of these churches. 

And one way to apostles tried to follow up with the new churches and set them straight, was to write letters to them, many of which were saved and passed along and became the letters (books) of the NT.

But, again, just because there were problems and errors that crept into the churches, which the books of the NT were written to straighten out, doesn’t mean the NT itself has to have those same flaws.

---

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

See, this is a perfect example of what I don’t get.  When both the book of Acts ch15 and Galatians ch2 claim that James, along with John and Peter, were in theological agreement with everything Paul taught…how can you state that there was a theological difference between James and Paul?!

And just because “James is written much like old-school, Solomonesque wisdom literature”, that doesn’t mean he had theological differences with Paul.  To different people can have different writing styles, yet still have the same doctrine.  Example:  there are hundreds of millions of Christians who believe stealing is a sin, yet those very hundreds of millions of Christians don’t share the same writing style.

Why even bring up the fact Paul and James have two different writing styles as if they have to share the same writing style to have the same belief?!
Logged
ILoveTheSmellOfTheSenate
Rookie
**
Posts: 19


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2014, 03:00:32 AM »


Ha!  My charm always gives me away! 

Look, I am not going to lie:  I am a Republican, in Florida for 3 days, staying in a hotel in West Palm Beach.

Is that a problem?  Wink
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2014, 02:57:36 PM »

If anything, Tweed's categories are too broad.  A doctoral dissertation would end up something like "How Nuances of the Word ἐκκλησία Not Conveyed in English Conveys Hidden Layers of Meaning in the Work of Paul" or something.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2014, 04:23:25 PM »

Eons ago, the first scholarly study I ever read of the Apocalypse of John was a book called What the Spirit Said to the Churches by a Catholic priest whose name I can't recall or recover from internet searches (Hubert Richards or something??).  His historical dissection of the text, and in particular the gematria associated with persons identified in the apocalyptic genre, really fascinated me.  If I were to study the NT at a doctoral level, I'd like to work on something like that.  If that wasn't possible, then maybe studying the parables and their relation to Haggadah Midrash would be pretty fun too.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2014, 03:05:58 AM »

See, this is a perfect example of what I don’t get.  When both the book of Acts ch15 and Galatians ch2 claim that James, along with John and Peter, were in theological agreement with everything Paul taught…how can you state that there was a theological difference between James and Paul?!

I sort of hate to do this since you can't respond, but the Epistle of James does not contain anything that is clearly a difference with Pauline theology, but that's because it deals almost entirely with proper behavior and ethics in this world and contain no eschatology, no ecclesiology, and other than an acceptance of Jesus as the Christ with no details of what that implies it has practically no Christology.  Indeed, other than accepting that Jesus was Christ and that he would return, there's nothing in James that would contradict rabbinic Judaism.  I'll go even farther than that.  I don't think there's anything in James that contradicts the Qur'an since Islam accepts that Jesus was the Messiah but rejects that he (or anyone else) was literally the Son of God and that is a claim not made in James.

As for Acts 15 and Galatians 2, since Luke-Acts was clearly written by a Pauline Christian and pretty much every one agrees Galatians was indeed written by Paul, so it's not at all surprising that they'd share very similar theology, but that couldn't prove that they shared the same theology as James.  At most they'd show that the Paulines asserted that there were no significant differences, but I don't even see that.  While both passages show that James did accept that Gentiles could be Christians, they don't show James accepted Paul's belief that Jews were no longer bound by the law of Moses.  Indeed, Galatians 2 indicates that at the least the followers of James thought Jews still had to keep the law of Moses, even if James himself conceivably might not have thought that.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2014, 05:58:15 PM »

Probably the Synoptic Gospels, although John is probably my favorite gospel in terms of content.  Paul would come in a close second.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 13 queries.