Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Remedial English 101

From David Waltz:

(Hopefully, they [Bridges, Hays] have been able to move past their Catholic serial killer mentality).

Hopefully Waltz has moved beyond projecting his own opinions onto us and then shifting the burden of proof.

Bridges seems to justify his stance with the points made earlier in a., b., and c.; he then recommends that I “take a gander at Carson and Beale”. Fair enough, so this morning I turned to Beale, who wrote:

"The conclusion of those who see the New Testament use of the Old Testament as non-contextual is that twentieth-century Christians should not attempt to reproduce the exegetical method of the New Testament writers, except when it corresponds to our grammitical-historical method…But it is not necessary to claim that we have to have such inspiration to reproduce their method or their conclusions. The fact that we don’t have the same “revelatory stance” as the New Testament writers only means that we cannot have the same epistemological certainty about our interpretative conclusions and applications as they did. Exegetical method should not be confused with certainty about the conclusions of such method, since the two are quite distinct." (G.K. Beale, “Positive Answer To the Question”, in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts, ed. G.K. Beale, p. 399.)

Amen Dr. Beale! I am truly left wondering if Bridges and Hays have actually read one of the authors they recommended…

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/09/apostolic-hermeneutics-vs-bridges-and.html

Unfortunately for Waltz, the poor guy suffers from basic reading incomprehension.

In the first section which David quotes, Beale is summarizing a position in order to then oppose said position in the second section which David quotes.

Beale doesn’t take the position that the NT writers quote the OT out of context. He doesn’t take the position that modern exegetes should avoid reproducing apostolic exegesis except where it corresponds to grammatico-historical exegesis (on the assumption that the two are characteristically in conflict).

That’s the opposing position. The position that Beale is going to criticize. Beale is summarizing a particular view of apostolic exegesis as a set up to then critique that particular view of apostolic exegesis.

As he goes on to explain, he thinks this evaluation fails to distinguish between exegetical method and exegetical certainly.

Since a modern exegete is uninspired and therefore fallible, he cannot reproduce the certainty of Apostolic interpretations. But that doesn’t mean he cannot or should not reproduce their methods.

Waltz is a very careless reader. It isn’t difficult to distinguish Beale’s position from the opposing position—even in the section he quoted. Let’s consider some of Beale’s other statements in the same chapter.

He says the NT interpretation of the OT “does not contravene the integrity of the earlier texts but rather develops them in a way which is consistent with the Old Testament author’s understanding of the way in which God interacts with his people—which is the unifying factor between the Testaments “ (393).

“Put another way, it [typology] does not read into the text a different or higher sense, but draws out from it a different or higher application of the same sense” (395, emphasis his).

“In the light of our overall discussion, the proposal of many that the New Testament’s exegetical approach to the Old Testament is characteristically non-contextual is a substantial overstatement…I remain convinced that once the hermeneutical and theological presuppositions of the New Testament writers are considered, there are no clear examples where they have developed a meaning from the Old Testament which is inconsistent or contradictory to some aspect of the original Old Testament intention” (398).

“I am prepared to accept the possibility of non-contextual, Jewish ad hominem argumentation used polemically by New Testament writers, although I am unconvinced that this occurs anywhere in the New Testament. If it did occur, it might best be understood as the author’s intention not to exegete the Old Testament but to beat the Jews at their own game (402-03).

“Thus, I believe a positive answer can and must be given to the question, ‘Can we reproduce the exegesis of the New Testament?’” (404).

There’s no point in Waltz owning 15,000 books when his level of reading comprehension is so deficient.

22 comments:

  1. To take “account of the ‘primary hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles’”, and then conclude that their hermeneutic is not the “issue” is nonsensical.

    This is, of course, one of the most ridiculous things Waltz could ever write.

    No, it IS the issue. All I have stated here is that, because we are discussing how WE should understand Scripture, the issue is how WE should understand the writers.

    It does not, therefore, follow, that the way we are to understand the writers is by using methods that THEY used - assuming for sake of argument that there is, in fact, a difference between their hermeneutics and our own.

    That second move requires a supporting argument from the person offering it. Where is that supporting argument from Waltz? We have yet to see what his alternative to the GHM actually is. It's not my burden of proof to read his mind in that matter. If he has a better alternative, let him produce it.

    And where has Waltz actually identified what the Apostles' "primary hermeneutic" actually is/was? And where has he discussed how and why we are to use it, and in which texts, and so forth? Instead, we've been treated to Enns, but we already know about Enns and the other side of that argument. Waltz is several steps behind the 8ball already. It's time for him to catch up.

    (Hopefully, they [Bridges, Hays] have been able to move past their Catholic serial killer mentality).

    Notice that I'm not the one who stalks other people on the internet.

    Amen Dr. Beale! I am truly left wondering if Bridges and Hays have actually read one of the authors they recommended…

    Yeah, I'm wondering if Waltz has actually passed middle school reading comprehension. It's a pity he can't follow Beale's own argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What do you expect, though, from a guy who uses the GHM to interact with you and argue against the utility and propriety of the GHM?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Steve,

    If anything, you are certainly an entertaining fellow…a hoot!

    You posted:

    Steve:>>Unfortunately for Waltz, the poor guy suffers from basic reading incomprehension.>>

    Me: Really?

    Steve:>>In the first section which David quotes, Beale is summarizing a position in order to then oppose said position in the second section which David quotes.>>

    Me: Yep.

    >>Beale doesn’t take the position that the NT writers quote the OT out of context. He doesn’t take the position that modern exegetes should avoid reproducing apostolic exegesis except where it corresponds to grammatico-historical exegesis (on the assumption that the two are characteristically in conflict).>>

    Me: Yep.

    Steve:>>That’s the opposing position. The position that Beale is going to criticize. Beale is summarizing a particular view of apostolic exegesis as a set up to then critique that particular view of apostolic exegesis.>>

    Me: Yep.

    Steve:>>As he goes on to explain, he thinks this evaluation fails to distinguish between exegetical method and exegetical certainly.>>

    Me: Yep. And later states, “We must remember also that the conclusions of all biblical exegesis are a matter of degrees of possibility and probabilty, and the conclusions of typology must be viewed in the same way.” (Page 400.)

    Steve:>>Since a modern exegete is uninspired and therefore fallible, he cannot reproduce the certainty of Apostolic interpretations. But that doesn’t mean he cannot or should not reproduce their methods.>>

    Me: Yep. Once again, and their methods were…the GMH??? (If you are just going to point me, once again, to a book I do not own, don’t bother…)

    Steve:>>Waltz is a very careless reader. It isn’t difficult to distinguish Beale’s position from the opposing position—even in the section he quoted.>>

    Me: Yep. Other than your incredibly silly, subjective, statements concerning my basic reading skills, I agree with everything you have written in your post (redundancy comes to mind)…hmmm…and your real goal is? (I shall speculate: Steve hates Papists, and I doesn’t like David Waltz, so he will do everything in his power to try to deflect and demean what David writes, and will do so on his blog so that his ‘choir’ can assist him in this endeavor.)

    More from Beale: “The plausibility of the suggestion that typological interpretation is normative and that we may seek for more Old Testament types than the New Testament actually states for us [how about the Ark as a type of Mary (grin)] is pointed to by the observation that this method is not unique to the New Testament writers but pervades the Old Testament.” (Page 402.)

    Once again, amen Dr. Beale!



    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  4. DAVID WALTZ SAID:

    “Me: Yep. And later states, “We must remember also that the conclusions of all biblical exegesis are a matter of degrees of possibility and probabilty, and the conclusions of typology must be viewed in the same way.” (Page 400.)”

    Which, as Beale carefully explains, is not a question of *methodology*, but *certainty*.

    So Beale, unlike you, is not driving a wedge between apostolic hermeneutics and grammatico-historical hermeneutics.

    “Me: Yep. Once again, and their methods were…the GMH??? (If you are just going to point me, once again, to a book I do not own, don’t bother…)”

    Indeed, it would be futile to point you to a book you don’t own when you lack the elementary reading skills to grasp a book you do own. You were the one who quoted from chap. 22 of the book Beale edited. And you systematically misconstrue his position.

    “I agree with everything you have written in your post (redundancy comes to mind).”

    One has to be redundant with an obtuse opponent like yourself. And since not everyone owns the book you quoted from, I quoted extensively from the same book to show how you misrepresented Beale’s position.

    “More from Beale: “The plausibility of the suggestion that typological interpretation is normative and that we may seek for more Old Testament types than the New Testament actually states for us [how about the Ark as a type of Mary (grin)] is pointed to by the observation that this method is not unique to the New Testament writers but pervades the Old Testament.” (Page 402.)”

    i) Beale doesn’t regard Biblical typology as acontextual. So this quote doesn’t establish your contention.

    ii) The general fact that Biblical typology is legitimate doesn’t in any way legitimate every *claim* to identify a specific type in Scripture, viz. the ark as a Marian type.

    “Me: The above is why I still maintain that apostolic exegesis is basically irrelevant to Gene’s and Steve’s hermeneutical method. Yet, once again, Beale disagrees with them here (at least in his 1989 essay that I quoted).”

    As the quotes from Beale bear out, he doesn’t take a different position on apostolic exegesis than we do.

    “At the present, it seems to me that most of Enns’ critics are not disagreeing with him on apostolic exegesis, but rather, that they sense his book has moved away from the position that the Bible is inerrant—do you see this the same way?”

    Wrong again! If you bothered to read the review by Carson, or the interview with Beale and Carson, both of which I directed you to, you would see that the critics are also taking him to task for his position on apostolic exegesis.

    On second thought, you might not be able to see that given your deficient reading skills.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve (Grandmaster of Deflection) Hays posted:

    Steve:>> So Beale, unlike you, is not driving a wedge between apostolic hermeneutics and grammatico-historical hermeneutics.>>

    Me: When and where did I drive driving a “wedge between apostolic hermeneutics and grammatico-historical hermeneutics”? You are misrepresenting my position (and I suspect you know that you are) for I do not maintain that the two are mutually exclusive, but rather, like Beale, believe that we are (and can succeed with a high degree of success), to try and duplicate apostolic hermeneutics. Nice try though…

    Steve:>> Indeed, it would be futile to point you to a book you don’t own when you lack the elementary reading skills to grasp a book you do own. You were the one who quoted from chap. 22 of the book Beale edited. And you systematically misconstrue his position.>>

    Me: I did NOT “misconstrue his position”, but that is what you want your readers to think, and you will twist everything I say to facilitate that goal…

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gene (DON’T USE THEIR METHODS) Bridges posted:

    Gene:>>To take “account of the ‘primary hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles’”, and then conclude that their hermeneutic is not the “issue” is nonsensical

    This is, of course, one of the most ridiculous things Waltz could ever write.

    No, it IS the issue. All I have stated here is that, because we are discussing how WE should understand Scripture, the issue is how WE should understand the writers.

    It does not, therefore, follow, that the way we are to understand the writers is by using methods that THEY used - assuming for sake of argument that there is, in fact, a difference between their hermeneutics and our own.>>

    Me: Right, I get it – DON’T USE THEIR METHODS!, DON’T USE THEIR METHODS!!, DON’T USE THEIR METHODS!!! – but, their methods are relevant to our method – got it…


    Gene:>>That second move requires a supporting argument from the person offering it. Where is that supporting argument from Waltz? We have yet to see what his alternative to the GHM actually is. It's not my burden of proof to read his mind in that matter. If he has a better alternative, let him produce it.>>

    And where has Waltz actually identified what the Apostles' "primary hermeneutic" actually is/was? >>

    Me: Beale tells us quite clearly what their primary exegetical method was; and since it was you who recommended Beale to me, why should I bother typing up what he said?


    Gene:>>Notice that I'm not the one who stalks other people on the internet.>>

    Me: Right. (ROFL)

    Gene: >>Yeah, I'm wondering if Waltz has actually passed middle school reading comprehension. It's a pity he can't follow Beale's own argument.>>

    Me: I shall refrain from stating my verbal SAT score, you would just accuse me of bragging…(WINK)

    ReplyDelete
  7. DAVID WALTZ SAID:

    “You are misrepresenting my position (and I suspect you know that you are) for I do not maintain that the two are mutually exclusive, but rather, like Beale, believe that we are (and can succeed with a high degree of success), to try and duplicate apostolic hermeneutics. Nice try though…”

    You’re prevaricating. Beale doesn’t take the position that apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis represent two different hermeneutical methods. Even if *you* think they’re complementary approaches, *Beale* doesn’t treat them was two different approaches to the text.

    To say that you, in agreement with Beale, believe it’s possible to reproduce apostolic exegesis is deceptive since you, unlike Beale, are *contrasting* apostolic exegesis with grammatico-historical exegesis.

    Interpreting a passage in context and out of context are, indeed, mutually exclusive approaches. Beale treats them as mutually exclusive, then denies that NT writers interpret the OT out of context.

    “Me: I did NOT “misconstrue his position”, but that is what you want your readers to think, and you will twist everything I say to facilitate that goal…”

    My readers don’t depend on my interpretation. That’s why I quoted a number of passages from Beale’s article, reproduced in the book he edited. They can read the quotes for themselves and compare your spin with what he actually said.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Me: Right, I get it – DON’T USE THEIR METHODS!, DON’T USE THEIR METHODS!!, DON’T USE THEIR METHODS!!! – but, their methods are relevant to our method – got it…

    1. The onus is on you to tell us what their method was.

    2. Unlike you, apparently, I don't regard typological exegesis as acontextual to the text. I subscribe to Beale's statements.

    3. What I stated, and that you can't, for whatever reason, seem to grasp is this elementary principle:

    The issue the GHM addresses is how WE are to understand THEM (the writers of the Biblical texts) NOT whether or not it is appropriate to apply "apostolic exegesis (e.g methodology) to the texts as a whole." That second move requires a supporting argument that you, David, have yet to provide.

    If you think that we should employ methods that the GHM does not account for or that the GHM can't or doesn't account for THEIR methodology, it's up to you to demonstrate that to be the case. In other words, what methods do you suppose we should use to understand the writers of Scripture if not the GHM? What is your principled alternative? We're still waiting for an answer to that question.

    Me: Right. (ROFL)

    Really? Where, pray tell, on this blog can you find any interaction with, let's see, you in particular where you did not come here first?

    I don't run around the internet looking for targets the way you stalk me or James White. I've been over this with you before as have many others.

    Me: I shall refrain from stating my verbal SAT score, you would just accuse me of bragging…(WINK)

    I don't have to, all we have to show is that you have misrepresented the very text from which you earlier quoted. Good job.

    Me: When and where did I drive driving a “wedge between apostolic hermeneutics and grammatico-historical hermeneutics”? You are misrepresenting my position (and I suspect you know that you are) for I do not maintain that the two are mutually exclusive, but rather, like Beale, believe that we are (and can succeed with a high degree of success), to try and duplicate apostolic hermeneutics

    On the contrary, earlier, when I asked you if you were NOT trying to do this, you did not reply otherwise. Given your very own yardstick for what constitutes the acceptance of a "charge" then you are impeached by your own yardstick.

    One of your continuing problems - and one that makes you a dishonest opponent - is the way you keep adding caveats to your statements not in the originals.

    You originally opposed Apostolic Hermenenutics to what Steve and I said (and systematically misrepresented us in the process). You did so on the presumption that we believed there was a disjunction between AH and the GHM.

    Indeed this is expressly what you stated:

    a) Steve’s governing hermeneutic when approaching the Scriptures is the GHM
    b) The GHM was not the governing hermeneutic used by Jesus and His apostles.
    c) Ergo: By using a different governing hermeneutic than Jesus and His apostles Steve has [in essence] demoted the governing hermeneutic of Jesus and His apostles to a position of irrelevancy [pragmatically speaking].

    In case, David, you can't follow your own argumentation, this means you are driving a wedge between the GHM and AH.

    Now, if you want to caveat that, yet again, by all means do so, but that's a tacit admission that you have to keep changing your position as you go, thereby negating what you stated previously.

    I did NOT “misconstrue his position”, but that is what you want your readers to think, and you will twist everything I say to facilitate that goal…

    Saying that you did not do so and demonstrating that to be so are not convertible.

    I'll leave it to Steve to demonstrate for you, yet again, how you do so.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Me: Beale tells us quite clearly what their primary exegetical method was; and since it was you who recommended Beale to me, why should I bother typing up what he said?

    Pardon me? You were making this argument apart from Beale prior to having looked at Beale. I'm merely asking you to make good on your own argument. Don't call Steve the "grand master of deflection" when you won't answer this basic question. Punting to Beale won't help you now.

    Moreover, once you do, you'll need to provide a supporting argument that this is the method qua method we should use and that it trumps the GHM and that the GHM can't account for it, since it's you who constrasts them (unlike Beale).

    I suspect you haven't yet, because you know you've overreached yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gene & Steve,

    Are you saying something like the following?

    We can/ought to apply the GHM to both the Old and New Testaments in order to figure out what those texts mean; this is the building block that enables us to derive Christological typology from the meaning of the OT. The typology isn't the meaning of the text, but an application or perhaps implication of the text. Or perhaps the purpose of the text.

    Is it a matter of meaning vs. application? A difference between understanding the meaning of a Psalm and understanding the Christological application of that Psalm?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good morning Steve,

    You posted the following:

    Steve:>>You’re prevaricating. Beale doesn’t take the position that apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis represent two different hermeneutical methods.>>

    Me: Did not say that he did. But, neither does he state that they represent the same hermeneutical methods.

    Steve:>>Even if *you* think they’re complementary approaches, *Beale* doesn’t treat them was two different approaches to the text.>>

    Me: Depends on what you mean by “approaches”. If you are saying the dominant ‘approach’ of the apostles to OT passages was according to its literal, or normal, sense (the literal sense being the grammatical-historical sense, as stated by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics), in other words, the meaning which the writer originally expressed, then I would have to disagree with you.

    Steve:>>To say that you, in agreement with Beale, believe it’s possible to reproduce apostolic exegesis is deceptive since you, unlike Beale, are *contrasting* apostolic exegesis with grammatico-historical exegesis.>>

    Me: Here were my exact words: “like Beale, believe that we are (and can succeed with a high degree of success), to try and duplicate apostolic hermeneutics.” On this point (not the additions YOU made) I agree with Beale—and you chide me for a lack of reading skills…my-oh-my…

    >>Interpreting a passage in context and out of context are, indeed, mutually exclusive approaches. Beale treats them as mutually exclusive, then denies that NT writers interpret the OT out of context.>>

    Me: Yep. Beale is quite clear on this, in fact, he is essentially rebutting Longenecker’s position as found in the previous essay ,“Negative Answer to the Question” (chapter 21).

    However, I am NOT convinced that Dr. Beale is using the terms “context” and “contextual” in the exact same sense as Dr. Longenecker, for he employs the term “semi-contextual”, and describes “context” in a VERY BROAD sense, while Longenecker uses term for the “immediate literary context”. Here are Beale’s own words:

    “Those texts with a low degree of correspondence with the Old Testament literary context can be referred to as semi-contextual, since they seem to fall between the poles of what we ordinarily call “contextual” and “non-contextual” usages. Indeed, there are instances where New Testament writers handle Old Testament texts in a diametrically opposite manner to that in which they appear to function in their original contexts. Often, upon closer examination such uses reveal an ironic or polemicla intention. In such examples it would be wrong to conclude that an Old Testament refence has been interpreted non-contextually. Indeed, awareness of context must be presupposed in making such interpretations of Old Testament texts. On the other hand, non-contextual uses of the Old Testament many be expected to occur where there is unintentual or unconscious allusion. Caution should be exercised in labeling Old Testament usages merely either as contextual or non-contextual, since other more precisely descriptive interpretative categories may be better.” (Page 391.)

    I am not so sure that Longenecker, if armed with Beale’s heavily nuanced definiton of the term contextual, would be as adamant in his denial.

    More later, the Lord willing.


    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  12. JUGULUM SAID:

    “Are you saying something like the following?__We can/ought to apply the GHM to both the Old and New Testaments in order to figure out what those texts mean; this is the building block that enables us to derive Christological typology from the meaning of the OT.”

    Good so far.

    “The typology isn't the meaning of the text, but an application or perhaps implication of the text. Or perhaps the purpose of the text.__Is it a matter of meaning vs. application? A difference between understanding the meaning of a Psalm and understanding the Christological application of that Psalm?”

    No, you just made a wrong turn. Typology is primarily about history, not hermeneutics. It’s about the significance of an event, not the significance of a text.

    The governing principle in typology is that God arranges certain events so that an earlier event (e.g. person, place, incident, institution) parallels a later event. As such, the event is prophetic. Prophetic events in contrast to prophetic words.

    However, the record of the event is contained in a text. So the interpretation of the (typical) event is secondarily bound up with the interpretation of a text. The text is the access point to the event.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BTW, Tim Margheim (aka JUGULUM) is one person I have to be especially nice to cuz he’s an AI programmer. If I get on the wrong side of Tim, he may send a Terminator back from the future to teach me a painful lesson!

    ReplyDelete
  14. DAVID WALTZ SAID:

    “Me: Did not say that he did. But, neither does he state that they represent the same hermeneutical methods.”

    There’s a little thing called logical implication which it would behoove you to learn. What is the position that Beale is opposing? He’s opposing the position that NT writers interpret the OT out of context. That they disregard original intent.

    If that’s the opposing position, the position that Beale is attacking, then what position does Beale attribute to NT writers? He takes the position that NT writers interpret the OT contextually. They respect original intent.

    That’s what the grammatico-historical method does. What is there you can’t wrap your head around?

    “Me: Depends on what you mean by ‘approaches’. If you are saying the dominant ‘approach’ of the apostles to OT passages was according to its literal, or normal, sense (the literal sense being the grammatical-historical sense, as stated by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics), in other words, the meaning which the writer originally expressed, then I would have to disagree with you.”

    The question at issue is not whether *you* disagree with me. Rather, you asserted that *Beale* disagrees with me.

    Beale explicitly denies that NT writers interpret the OT contrary to original intent.

    “On this point (not the additions YOU made) I agree with Beale—and you chide me for a lack of reading skills…my-oh-my…”

    Once again, you’re dissembling. You don’t agree with Beale since you don’t mean the same thing by reproducing apostolic exegesis that he does. You oppose apostolic exegesis to grammatico-historical exegesis—whereas the whole point of the book he edited was to critique that position.

    You don’t get to quote a line from Beale and then claim that you agree with him when you mean something different by his words than he meant by his words.

    So, yes, I continue to chide you for your lack of reading skills. “My-oh-may” and all that good stuff.

    “Me: Yep. Beale is quite clear on this.”

    So you admit that Beale doesn’t agree with *you*, he agrees with *me*.

    “I am not so sure that Longenecker, if armed with Beale’s heavily nuanced definiton of the term contextual, would be as adamant in his denial.”

    A red herring since I never identified my own position with Longenecker’s.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve,

    Ah, thanks. I was groping towards something along those lines--a distinction between the meaning of the OT text and the Christological typology used in the NT--but wasn't sure how to express it. The parallel to prophecy is helpful.

    I wonder, though, if the following can be applied across the board:

    "It’s about the significance of an event, not the significance of a text."

    When we're talking about a Psalm, what's the event? I guess you could say, "The event of the psalmist writing those words," but then it's not clear to me what the distinction is between the text and the event.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "BTW, Tim Margheim (aka JUGULUM) is one person I have to be especially nice to cuz he’s an AI programmer. If I get on the wrong side of Tim, he may send a Terminator back from the future to teach me a painful lesson!"

    Though, in the vagaries of time travel--when we consider time not as a strict progression of events, but rather (from a non-linear, non-subjective view-point) as a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey...stuff--it may be that I willan have on-sent one...Already.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh dear, this means I shall have to be nice to Jugulum too. I recognize what he said. Jugulum is a Time Lord. I gather you survived the Time War, or did you sit it out in a fob watch? :D

    ReplyDelete
  18. Neither, exactly. I took a page from Heinlein and mixed mythologies; I waited at the Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.

    (BTW, did you hear that Blink won a Hugo award?)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes, I did. Moffat is taking over Who for the next series (2010) as well.

    Word on the street has it that the Hamlet production in which Tennant stars is moving to NYC, so there is quite a bit of speculation now with respect to whether or not DT will move with it. If he does we all know what that means...

    ReplyDelete
  20. The return of DD? (Name obfuscated to protect the Season-4-finale unspoiled.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. JUGULUM SAID:

    Though, in the vagaries of time travel--when we consider time not as a strict progression of events, but rather (from a non-linear, non-subjective view-point) as a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey...stuff--it may be that I willan have on-sent one...Already.

    Neither, exactly. I took a page from Heinlein and mixed mythologies; I waited at the Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.

    **************************************************

    Tim,

    Where’s your sense of sportsmanship? I already have my hands full trying to duck all the T-888s you throw in my direction, but do you also expect me to dodge hyperintelligent, pandimensional beings disguised as mice? At least give me a head start!

    ReplyDelete
  22. So you can't deal with their constant demands for rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty? I would have thought you would be used to it by now...

    ReplyDelete