<<If one's hermeneutics is an extension of (ironically) one's reductionism,
then Pun is right. However, Pun fails to realize that ontological
realities (imago Dei, sin) are not reducible. In sum, don't take a
"cookbook" hermeneutic to an Ancient Near Eastern text (even if it is
indeed Holy Spirit inspired) . . . otherwise you're going to concoct a
witch's brew.>>
Pun is not reducing "ontological realities." Nothing of the kind. In fact,
he's vindicating their "ontological-ness." Your quarrel about hermeneutics is
a different position, and one that is, at least for me, unconvincing. I have
no idea what you mean by "cookbook," other than as a pejorative--backed up by
what? And what is your alternative?
<<Does my practising
dentistry with the best reductionistic categories make me inconsistent
despite the fact I believe in miraculous healing (ie, direct
intervention)?>>
Not the same thing. TEs deny interventionism, preferring things like
"tweaking," "gapless developmental," etc. They do argue that this in itself is
miraculous. I would agree with that logic. The question of its factuality is
another matter.
<<Jim, if you showed up in Edmonton with a sore tooth, I'll bet you anything
you would only let me treat you using reductionist methods.>>
That begs the question of whether I'd want you treating me at all. Remember
the scene from Marathon Man, with Olivier drilling the captive Hoffman while
repeating, "Is it safe?" I can feel it now, "Is it reductionist?" BZZZZZZ "Is
it reductionist?" BZZZZZZZZ.
You wouldn't do that to me, would you?
<<Again, ironically, Pun's own (tacit) reductionism (and, yes, even
Platonism) is on display here. Specifically, he seems to only appreciate
TE in compartmental categories.>>
I don't see it. Please explain Pun's "tacit" reductionism and Platonism. He
was merely DESCRIBING the TE method. So where do these conclusions come from?
Do you have a pipeline into his noggin? What tools DO you have in your office
up there in Edmonton?
I mentioned Terry Gray's and Howard Van Till's reliance on extra-biblical
texts, to which you wrote:
<<So how about the
epistemology that supports your hermeneutics Jim, is it
Biblical? If so, how about citing chapter and verse? Do you really think
you are so "hermeneutically pure" as to not have any "extra-biblical
justifications" in your theology?>>
You've mixed two different issues here. Pure hermeneutics (how you DO
interpretation) IS a matter of method, presuppositions and the like. But the
actual TEXTS you use to formulate your theology is quite another. The latter
point was the one I was making.
<< Did you ever read the Delphi Oracle? Go read it again,
you might find it helpful, despite the fact it is extra-biblical.
Get my point?>>
No, I'm afraid I don't. Please run it by me again.
Jim