tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8478227.post2735567447906796783..comments2023-07-23T11:18:06.500-07:00Comments on In the Corner with Matt: Presuppositions and Biblical InterpretationJ. Matthew Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02599013442666547304noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8478227.post-75948353362337955352008-04-04T14:11:00.000-07:002008-04-04T14:11:00.000-07:00Rowan Williams addressed this in his lectures ""Th...Rowan Williams addressed this in his lectures ""The Bible: Reading and Hearing". It is a wonderful little synopsis of the role of scripture and community you might enjoy. It's at:<BR/>http://www.trinity.utoronto.ca/News_Events/news/archbishop.htmErinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13301222412563398458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8478227.post-90434584826350721712008-01-30T13:21:00.000-08:002008-01-30T13:21:00.000-08:00Chris, thanks for your comments as always!1. My po...Chris, thanks for your comments as always!<BR/><BR/>1. My point about postmodernism is that it has finally killed objectivity (sure, it was on life support, but clearly only eulogies remain now!).<BR/><BR/>2. You hit all the nails on the head here!<BR/><BR/>3. Job protection comes into play here I guess, though I've not thought about that extensively. And I agree with you that trying to find meaning and intent is not the end; but, like I am sure you would agree, if we don't do thorough work at this point, then we may be led down roads that the text simply does not allow. Also, how else are we to judge readings of the text if not from the text itself?<BR/><BR/>4. You are right in your assessment of my favoritism. Since I think that these texts that we have are authoritative in some way, then I have to actually deal with them. For example, I prefer the arguments in the pistis christou debate that are based on grammar, context, semantics, etc, not the ones based on "the theology of Paul" (as if we can really find that from a few of his letters) or modern theological concerns.J. Matthew Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02599013442666547304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8478227.post-371352081945422732008-01-30T11:08:00.000-08:002008-01-30T11:08:00.000-08:001. Recognition of presuppositions is not a postmod...1. Recognition of presuppositions is not a postmodern thing. Bultmann had much to say about it well before postmodernism was in vogue.<BR/><BR/>2. Yes! But, I think half the battle is acknowledging our interpretive locations to ourselves. We too often think our positions are the "normal" ones that need not be acknowledged because "that's the way every normal person reads texts." Historical critics were (and some still are) guilty of this for generations.<BR/><BR/>3. I've never believed we should "give up the task of trying to find out what Paul or John or Matthew or even Jesus intended." I'm just asking us to see these pursuits in proper perspective. They are not the end all to theological exegesis. They are not even the ultimate goal. It is truewe will have new discoveries, etc., but I wonder if "new discoveries, new technologies, and new historical methods" aren't sometimes developed for job protection (I'm thinking especially of new historical methods). Scholars have to find new ways to talk about the same subjects. I mean, how many historical methods can there be?<BR/><BR/>4. YES!!! The key word here is "consciously." We cannot consciously try to read over against our worldview, if we do not first recognize that we have a worldview. For instance, I would venture to guess that your inclination toward historical, grammatical, lexical conversations has much to do with your presupposition about the theological significance of such matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com