>I for one would be wary of some of Origin's interpretations, for
>example. I think we should be wary of touting the interpretations of the
>early church fathers as justification for our interpretations. It is
>good to check our interpretations versus what other able exegetes come up
>with as a check on idiosyncrasy or theological bias, however, someone
>today who is knowledgeable in the original languages, culture, literary
>forms, and a correct literal hermeneutical technique can do as good a job
>as anyone in history, and probably better, by going directly to the
>Biblical text. Today we also have archeological finds and scientific
>knowledge (such as the earth is round and goes round the sun and not
>vice-versa) to guide us towards a correct understanding of the text of
>Scripture.
Your last sentence (and Garry DeWeese's statement) is about half of my point
on this issue. If we use the external evidence such as the fact that the
earth is round and circles the sun, or knowledge of the archeology, then we
are not getting our interpretation out of the internal Biblical evidence such
as language, structure etc. We are getting our interpretations largely from
the SCIENCE we know not from the language relationships. (this is going to
upset people) But of course, when someone challenges the exegesis, we are
told that it is the language and methods of exegesis which require a given
interpretation and the non-initiated can not possibly understand.
I have no problem with doing that and in fact do it myself. But I would
suggest that we are kidding ourselves if we try to claim that the language
alone is what drives the game in exegesis. I simply wish those who claim such
purity in motives and methods would realize that this is what they appear to
be doing. If they weren't doing this, then it would be easy to find the 15%
level of church fathers who believe that Genesis 1 was myth and Adam, Eve and
the Fall were allegorical.
glenn