From: Gail Froese (gfroese@jetstream.net)
Date: Wed Dec 18 1996 - 13:25:58 EST
Somi wrote:
Yet, he
unapologetically insists that one needs to know the historical background to
understand the book. In my estimation, he (Fee) is contradicting
himself...if there is a scholar who accomplishes what Fee is meaning to do,
I would like to know of one. (I am not being sarcastic here...I would invite
anyone to show me a good biblical "historically-informed" interpretation.
Somi
I must agree with Gordon Fee, (I am sure that Fee is ecstatic about my endorsement) about the necessity of a historically-informed interpretation. I have found that a better example of this is the book of Colossians. Most modern commentators, such as Peter O'Brian (Word Biblical Commentary) see Paul's references to "pleroma" , "stoicheia tou kosmou" and other terms as references to gnostic astral dieties. This would certainly not be immediately obvious with a reading of the text alone without reference to it's historical context. Yet I find that reading it within this context gives the text new life and significance. Others who go even farther than O'Brien would include Eduard Lohse in the Hermeneia Commentary
What do you think?
Dan Froese
Pastor, Salmon Arm, BC
PhD wanna-be
ps: I am on the digest version of this list and so I may be a day of so late.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:00 EDT