James R Ginther wrote:
> This discussion highlights a major difficulty in the history of
> medieval theology these days, namely whether we can integrate
> contemporary models of reading the Bible with our reading of
> medieval theological texts.
In one sense, of course we can't. Medieval texts ought to be
read with medieval minds.
But as these are in short supply these days, we have to use modern
ones. However, given that we are all creatures of the 20th century,
we need to find ways of understanding how our predecessors thought.
Surely comparing the old and the new is one way to do this? It may
be pointless to look for a politically subversive Christ in
medieval theology, but it's worth asking why we won't find him there.
After all, both contemporary and medieval theoligians are working
from the same source material (more or less). Why do they reach
different conclusions?
(Before everyone rushes to their keyboards, I am not necessarily
asking this question directly, But, I would like to claim that
it's a valid question.)
Alasdair
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|