Larry Hurtado has some brief reflections concerning fundamentalist perspectives–both liberal and conservative–on Scripture:
Although each regards the other as its polar opposite, I suggest that actually both extremes tacitly share the same premiss: If the biblical writings are really historically conditioned they cannot be Word of God.
The whole post is worth a read.
Thanks Charles for pointing out this post.
My favorite quote would be, “They are both fundamentally boring!”
Moreover, both are fundamentally ignorant of how texts work. Of course a text is historically conditioned. How could it not be? (And, as Hurtado points out in the whole post, there is no good theological reason to object to this.) I think the premise Hurtado refers to is based on a shared assumption that historical context DETERMINES meaning. Hurtado’s liberals accept this assumption, and his conservatives reject it. But historical context instead CONSTRAINS the possibilities of what a text can mean. If meaning is determined by historical context, then biblical texts can never legitimately mean anything other than what they meant in antiquity and there’s no point in reading them other than out of antiquarian interest. (That said, antiquarian interest is a perfectly legitimate reason for reading the Bible, but clearly not the only one.) If meaning is constrained by historical context, the historical and cultural background of the author(s) should shape our interpretation of the text but need not (indeed cannot, really) be the only factors that shape what we take a text to mean.
I think of it like a dialogue with another person from a different cultural background than I. What I take away from it is going to have a lot to do with my own background, what I’m interested in, etc. But if I do not also pay attention to how that person’s background has shaped his point of view, I run the risk of grossly misinterpreting what was said and of making his “text” mean whatever I want it to mean, and quite possibly doing a great deal of violence to him in the process. I can think of many tragic exegetical errors that have been made this way.
Thanks, Charles, for drawing attention to this post. I only wish its point had been stronger.
I think you added really insightful observations to his comments, Angie. Very helpful stuff.
Pingback: An Insufficient Polarity: On ‘Minimalism’ and ‘Maximalism’ « ???????