A Hermeneutical Mongrel

Treier says of the canonical-linguistic approach, “it is more text- than author-centered” (115). I don’t think there is a dichotomy there. I am not willing to drive a wedge between the ‘text’ and the ‘author’s intention.’ And at the same time I want to criticize biblical criticism.

I really like Vanhoozer’s Drama of Doctrine. I really like his canonical-linguistic approach. I do not want to get lost in exegesis to the point that I forget the miraculous nature of the Bible… that it is God making Himself known, that it is for the church now and part of the economy of the gospel.

And I don’t want to give up that the Bible is God making Himself known in words, it is Scripture. Words are symbols that convey meaning. And it is not meaning that is arbitrary or in ignorance. They were selected on purpose.  And God made it happen that way. He shows us Jesus Christ in words.

Sailhoozer is where I am settling. I’ll keep reading…

2009
07/02
CATEGORY
Hermeneutics
Personal
TAGS
Write comment

  1. You must inform me of this Sailhoozer man. He sounds interesting.

    Very good stuff, again, brother. I’m getting some good help from John Webster right now, and here is one more from his Holy Scripture: http://preciseandtowering.tumblr.com/post/133834952/its-more-like-providence

  2. Matt,

    I like that quote. We need to sit and have a Webhoozer talk sometime.

  1. No trackbacks yet.