tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post8718584837161734859..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: Richard Hays on the Gospel of Mark and the Method of His Argument—Chris KeithAnthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-57560787366505096172017-05-19T07:55:13.598-07:002017-05-19T07:55:13.598-07:00I have just read this wonderful book and again my ...I have just read this wonderful book and again my eyes have been opened to see the beauty of the Gospels and Bible in general. Yes, I believe that if we have ears to hear God will open our eyes as well. <br />It is interesting to read, though, argument of the scholars who see "danger in intertextuality as hermenautical tool. In one of his talks available on YouTube he said:"I often say that I spend a good deal of my time as a New Testament scholar explaining to other New Testament scholars things that are generally obvious to most Christians." <br />Intertextuality is sophisticated, yet simple tool to interpret the Bible. It's the Bible commenting on itself. Even though many think that it opens too many possibilities for interpretation I think that it actually narrows down possibilities and grounds them. Just as we need two noncolinear points to define one straight line, as opposed to one point that defines infinite number of straight lines, two texts that create a "connection between two events or persons," help us to narrow down interpretation and point us in specific direction. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-17030230100360267542016-08-16T05:46:49.722-07:002016-08-16T05:46:49.722-07:00Hays's method of finding allusions centers on ...Hays's method of finding allusions centers on the community -- a little too coveniently, I think, for his overall theology. Thus his method implies that having "ears to hear" means "reading with the Church". This community-centered approach finds at least part of its theoretical mooring in Continental hermeneutics (including the American offshoots of that way of thinking). It simply christianizes that approach by identifying the voice of the Spirit with whatever is vogue in the Church at a given time. Hays's use of the word "intertextuality", with its invocation of Julia Kristeva, signals this debt to Continental philosophy. (I'm not griping about the word "intertextuality", which I often use myself.) If Hays had used the term employed by Kristeva's predecessors in the intertextuality project -- *viz.* the "arte allusiva" associated with Giorgio Pasquali's researches on late Roman poetry -- he would not have found the method associated with the term to imply such a ready-made communitarian hermeneutic.John C. Poiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-61945968498664851352016-08-16T05:04:06.041-07:002016-08-16T05:04:06.041-07:00One of Hays's criteria for detecting allusions...One of Hays's criteria for detecting allusions and echoes is "history of interpretation," which might serve as a check against the subjectivity of his ideal reader. However, he states that this criterion "may serve to expand than to veto our intuitions about particular echoes" (_Conversion of the Imagination_, 43).<br />Nick E.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07963612619746287730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-67726152229902908342016-08-15T17:28:43.364-07:002016-08-15T17:28:43.364-07:00Deane, I just had a read. Thanks for this insight...Deane, I just had a read. Thanks for this insight. I'm not in disagreement.Chris Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12007521996155910288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-31552163375074410502016-08-15T15:26:03.061-07:002016-08-15T15:26:03.061-07:00Hi Chris. I started writing a comment in reply, bu...Hi Chris. I started writing a comment in reply, but it got quite long, so I turned it into a response post, <a href="https://remnantofgiants.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/richard-hayss-method-and-failure-of-method/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Best, DeaneDeanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15332464950652540647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-61646164125649525852016-08-15T11:23:02.383-07:002016-08-15T11:23:02.383-07:00Unfairly innoculated, perhaps, but entirely necess...Unfairly innoculated, perhaps, but entirely necessary, since 99% of the commentary on record is non-original reception. We literally don't know what subtleties we might be missing. The ultimate bugbear would be ironic subtleties, where we have no idea when a statement is supposed to mean the opposite of what it says. <br /><br />Good thing that never happens! (!)Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-28711042073684105232016-08-15T10:30:05.547-07:002016-08-15T10:30:05.547-07:00Therein lies my frustration with much of the moder...Therein lies my frustration with much of the modern discussion about identifying the OT-in-the-New. Many modern audiences have come to expect (and editors demand) a methodology that is less subjective. Yet given the very nature of allusions and echoes, the texts themselves often defy verification. So does having "ears to hear" ultimately refer to how badly I want to agree with Hays and his co-contributors, or to those with a certain spiritual gift unavailable to others, or does it merely slant everything in the direction of the interpreter of the moment?scott caulleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11347949375543907713noreply@blogger.com