Re: Original intent (from The importance of concordism)

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Jan 11 2000 - 16:01:28 EST

  • Next message: glenn morton: "Re: The importance of concordism"

    David Campbell wrote:
    >
    > > If we don't start with some anchoring in what the human writers
    > >intended then we open up texts to all sorts of guesses about what the text
    > >"really" means and start reading into it our own meanings - which we will of
    > >course think are what God really meant.
    >
    > Although I agree that the original understanding of the author is extremely
    > important to understanding the text, there seem to be exceptions. A few
    > texts explicitly assert that those present at the time did not understand,
    > such as John 11:50 or 12:16. In the former, even the speaker was unaware
    > of the full import of his words. By the time he wrote, John had figured
    > out the importance of these. However, OT prophecy of NT or eschatological
    > events certainly could have been beyond the understanding of the author.

            In part this is because the full meaning of some OT texts is _given_ to
    them by Christ. E.g., when Jesus cites the story of the burning bush as proof
    of the resurrection he isn't uncovering some hidden meaning but putting new meaning into
    the story.
                    
    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 16:06:47 EST