I’ll be looking at chapters 6 & 7 tonight, though 7 will doubtless stay in focus as we go through 8 & 9.
YouTube:
Pure exegesis is a great guide but an unreachable goal.
This morning I have: Isaiah 61 as my scripture 45 minutes of teaching time Something’s gotta give!
Google+ Event Page YouTube: My post is very late, so I expect I won’t have a live audience tonight at all (they’re always very small), but still I need to provide the link for those who watch later. There will be some interesting connections tonight with my discussion with Steve Kindle (and his book I’m…
I commented earlier on the difficult choices involved in translating an Old Testament reference that does not match the Old Testament passage in your own translation. Here’s an example from the NIV1984. First, Psalm 8:4-6 – what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You…
Law can be annoying, but it is also valuable. I illustrate this by talking about a time when I couldn’t understand the rules applying to a situation.
There are quite a substantial number of theories about how God inspires people to write his message. Several people have suggested recently that I collect some of my own essays in order to provide a coherent discussion, not just about the results of inspiration, but also the process. I don’t think I’ve written enough about…
It occurred to me when listening to the repeated “according to the law of the Medes and Persians no decree or edict that the king issues can be changed” firstly that the law of the Medes and Persians is therefore hugely stupid (any student of law will quickly find that past precedents are a millstone round your neck when trying to find a just result) and secondly that the author may have expected his audience to pick up on that. It rather depends whether the authorship is before or after the advent of a tradition of picking away at the Mosaic Law and its interpreters among Jewish scholars (later they’d be universally called Rabbis, but maybe not at this date…)
It’s an interesting point, especially since I’m trying to look at the book from the perspective of two proposed times of writing and many possible redactional processes. I do believe that the king (Darius the Mede, unknown to history) is being portrayed negatively, but you may be right that the legal system is also receiving a similar portrayal. It would seem likely that such a commentary would be more likely with later dating, though it would fit with the Aramaic portions of the book coming from anywhere from the 5th to the 2nd century as the rabbinic laws are discussed and codified, though probably later in that period than earlier.