tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post2264424638783904323..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: In and Out HermeneuticsKen Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-72158711516718059312010-04-22T20:45:00.110-04:002010-04-22T20:45:00.110-04:00I have a feeling you already have some good ideas ...I have a feeling you already have some good ideas for this sort of conversation! Thanks for such a thoughtful response.<br /><br />I'm sure it would do me well to know how a particular text such as this one played in the progress of working out a doctrine like the Trinity. I feel a stab at a typology coming on--probably too long to post as a comment. I'll take a stab and set it to post in the morning. <br /><br />I'm sure it's been done before--you may even already have something like this in mind.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-84085368209428569402010-04-22T13:25:43.932-04:002010-04-22T13:25:43.932-04:00This is a great example. Thanks for this. Here a...This is a great example. Thanks for this. Here are some thoughts to continue our ongoing conversation about the relation between exegesis and theology:<br /><br />I agree that we ought to avoid <i>confusing</i> original meaning interpretation with intentional theological interpretation, for the sake of the integrity of both modes of interpretation. However, I'd like to hear more on how to construct a <i>conversation</i> between original meaning interpretation and intentional theological interpretation. I've heard you speak of constructing a biblical theology by drawing on the wider witness of scripture. That's good. But I'm wondering here more about how the two modes of interpretation engage each other in the exegesis of specific texts. <br /><br />For instance, in the case of Matthew 28, to what extent does the giving of authority to Jesus Christ in his resurrection from the dead help us to reconsider some (bad) habits of thought in the Christian tradition, such as when the incarnation renders the resurrection either logically necessary or superfluous, so that in either case it lacks dramatic significance. Without bringing original meaning interpretation to bear on theological interpretation, the latter cannot be challenged and/or developed by means of exegetical insights.<br /><br />In the other direction, to what extent can we consider later trinitarian reflection as an appropriate (though not necessarily exclusively valid) attempt at making sense of the explicitly theological claims made by a texts. Matthew 28 seems to say some things about the identity of Jesus. It seems to me that we cannot rule out in principle later doctrinal concepts. Though in practice I would agree that such concepts are the usual suspects for obscuring original meaning, I am leery of ruling them out altogether inasmuch as they might be occasionally helpful in the task of solving interpretive puzzles. I say this especially because, historically, it was such puzzle-solving capacity that contributed to the ascendancy of certain doctrinal proposals over others. <br /><br />Perhaps these musing just add to the confusion. I just don't want to give up on some kind of living relationship between exegesis and theology. Perhaps you have some thoughts on constructing a conversation between original meaning interpretation and theological interpretation that will clear up the confusion...JohnLDruryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120179182431573460noreply@blogger.com