Re: BG: Synoptic Apocalypse

From: David Moore (dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us)
Date: Wed Aug 30 1995 - 19:51:29 EDT


Edgar M. Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com> wrote:

>Questions of
>faith do not belong on an academic discussion list and, ideally, should
>also not arise from it. Postings to this lest should be evaluated on the
>basis of their philological, literary, and historical data and the cogency
>of the argumentation involved. And all should be done in good faith, with
>respect for others. That is just plain good manners.

>If anyone does wonder about faith commitments, they should recognize that
>they fall outside the scope of this list. And one should not make
>inferences about the faith of someone else from an academic discussion.

        The pendulum has swung back a considerable way from when
Tertullian promulgated the "prescription" that the heterodox, in their
teachings and argumentation, have no right to employ the Scriptures which
belong rightfully to the Church. In our generation, in contrast to
Tertullian's, some see the scientific method and a secular, scientific
mindset as _the_ prerequisites to correct interpretation of the Bible.
Some have even taken this to the extreme of refusing to consider seriously
the work of any exegete who doesn't exhibit a thoroughgoing
antisupernaturalism.

        Certain evangelical exegetes and theologians have been pointing
out for some time now that antisupernaturalistic bias ill equips the
interpreter of the Scriptures to come to terms with the message of the
Bible on its most basic level. How, for instance, can someone with
antisupernaturalistic bias understand the relation of a miracle. It must
be a non-event for him, because he doesn't have any categories of real
events into which it fits. If he considers _writing_ that deals with a
miracle, it can be c onsidered as a literary phenomenon, but never as
reality-portraying narrative. So, as the message of Scripture is made
acceptable to antisupernaturalistic sensibilities, the real message of
what the particular pericope is saying gets lost in the shuffle.

        This problem comes about, IMO, when the tools of exegesis assume
precedence over the message of the text. We are right to employ the best
tools our epoch affords in applying ourselves to the task of exegesis.
The historical-critical method is just such a powerful tool. Like any
powerful tool, however, it must be used with care. If the message of the
material under consideration is being dictated by the method employed in
contradiction to the plain meaning of the text, something is wrong. If we
demand that the meaning of Scripture conform to antisupernaturalistic
categories because we have inherited our tools of exegesis from a system
of science with antisupernaturalistic presuppositions, we will be severely
handicapped in getting at the true meaning of the Bible. I'm not
suggesting that we get rid of these tools, but that we recognize what
inherent biases their use may bring to the task of exegesis and that we
take sufficient care not to mangle the message of the text as we use them.

        To more directly address what Edgar has said: everyone's
presuppositions matter. Whoever thinks that what he believes doesn't
affect how he interprets Scripture, is, IMO, fooling himself.
Acknowledging our positions openly can keep us from thinking that only
those who disagree with us are the ones with presuppositions. We are here
to dialogue - to convince and to be convinced of the truth and correctness
of different interpretations. Being willing to let our own fundamental
convictions be known, IMO, facilitates that dialogue and frees us from
false posturing.

David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:26 EDT