From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:31:08 GMT

ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:

>The way I read what
>you're saying is that 
>* that the Scriptures are so obvious that you can't make any mistakes, or

Not guilty here.

>* that we must ultimately place ourselves in the hands of (experts
>masquarading as) non-personal principles or

You make expert sound like a dirty word.  When I look at a commentary, I
would tend to think that the commentator has something worthwhile to say,
because they have spent a large period of time in studying a text.  That
does not mean that I blindly follow what they say.  They are experts, if
you like, but they do not pretend to say that they have the one correct
interpretation.  If they have any intellectual honesty, they will be open
to correction by others.

The principles of interpretation are rather obvious when you look at
them.  They are basically what you are doing now, in understanding what I
am writing.  You understand my words by interpreting the grammar and
syntax that I use, as well as taking into account the semantics of words
and phrases.  Idioms, etc, are shared in our culture.  If you know a bit
about me, that may help in understanding something I write.  If you know
the circumstances of writing, that helps as well.

>* it is possible or profitable to interpret Scripture outside a tradition

Yes and no.  Tradition can be helpful, but should we be bound by
tradition?  Until the Renaissance, Scripture was largely interpreted in
Platonic categories.  With the re-emergence of Aristotle, Aristotelian
categories were used again.  Tradition changed because of outside
influence and interaction.  Being a tradition does not necessarily make
something right.

>On the last issue, I would say that in fact you do interpret inside a
>tradition: in particular a Trinitarian tradition. And a particular
>tradition that, a priori, reads scripture in a Protestant light. 

Agreed, sort of.  It depends what you mean by "a Protestant light".  If
you mean that I don't think of Scripture as having an allegorical meaning,
then I would agree with you.  On the other hand, if you mean that I ignore
anything that disagrees with my current beliefs, then I disagree.  I am
prepared to change my beliefs to fit with what I understand Scripture to
be saying.  To be otherwise is to set yourself above Scripture.

>I would not deny that scholarly methods can be applied to biblical
>interpretation, but I think you are wrong in thinking you actually don't
>use them from within the context of a theology/tradition. 

Again, I think that you have misinterpreted me.  I would be foolish to
claim that I do not participate in some sort of tradition.  The difference
is that I do not consider tradition on an equal footing with Scripture
itself.  If something in my tradition and Scripture disagree, then I will
go for Scripture.
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA
Newsgroups: aus.religion