Dear list members,
I have a rather ill defined question to put to the list. It springs
from my only passing knowledge of medieval exegesis. What,
essentially, I would like to know is how authoritative specific
exegetical interpretations of the Old Testament might have been
taken. For example, if Hrabanus Maurus interprets Esther pleading
with Ahausueras to obtain favour for her people as a type of Ecclesia
or the Virgin Mary interceding with Christ at the Last Judgement, can
one assume, in all cases, that this particular exegetical
interpretation would come to mind, or be considered appropriate, with
any reference to Esther pleading with Ahasueras? Undoubtedly, this
would depend on how widely accepted this specific exegetical exercise
was taken. But is it possible that in certain contexts, other quite
acceptable exegetical perspectives might arise? The Bible was taken
unquestioningly as revelation, but what status did the exegesis on it
occupy? Perhaps certain exegesis became "orthodox" or accepted while
other exegesis did not, but could several quite distinct
exegetical interpretations all be taken as equally orthodox, each
appropriate to its own circumstances? I realize that in
couching the question in this way, I make very little reference to
the different senses of exegetical interpretation, which might
certainly be a relevant aspect of the situation. Pardon, once again,
for the fuzziness of this question, but any advice on this point
would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Jim Bugslag
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|