 |
 |
Yes, and what about the four levels of exegesis ? That shows enormous flexibility of mind over text ! Being originally trained in lit.crit (first degree in English) I have found myself at cross purposes with historians when discussing a text that is more literary than historical. They seem to forget you can enjoy something deeply without believing in it. I do not think the willing suspension of disbelief was invented by the Romantics ! BMC. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 5:17 PM Subject: Re: identifying attributes of saints > In a message dated 8/25/00 9:15:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > [log in to unmask] writes: > > > One reader has challenged what we said > > about multivalent images, saying 'It is unhistorical to read such complex > > literary meanings into it ... although objects can and do mean different > > things in different contexts, they do not always mean everything, and > > Paul's sword [here the notes break off]'.The same reader also says in a > > general note that we have to distinguish between fundamental and secondary > > meanings and present a coherent understanding of what particular images > > mean in particular circumstances. > > There's so much reliance on multivalent imagery in the OT that I'm surprised > you're getting these questsions. Sometimes the questioning comes from those > who erroneously believe this kind of imagery was somehow invented from whole > cloth during the 20th century. > > One issue is that there's been a great deal written about the complexity of > modernist literature, often by commentators who aren't well-versed in the > literature of the past. So they don't realize that the literary complexity > and multivalence that they regard as uniquely "modern" may be actually be > traditional, or even as old as Genesis. > > A second issue is that theologians don't seemed to be trained in literary > analysis, and in many cases their understandings of Biblical passages are > unduly pedestrian for that reason. The complexity is in the text, but they > don't see it and haven't been taught to assess it, or even that it's > something to assess. This might be especially critical with the OT. I've read > many times that the Hebrew text is largely in poetry, and that Hebrew poetry > is quite complex. It seems to me, then, that a person who works with the > Hebrew text in any kind of interpretive manner is at a great disadvantage > without at least some training in how to analyze poetry, and how to use the > vocabulary for doing so. > > pat sloane > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%