2 thoughts on “Luther rejected the popular allegorical interpretation of Scripture in favor of a historical, literary and philological interpretation. Although Luther saw the Bible as much more than a historical document, he did not find the study of the Bible as a historical document, including it’s textual errors, to be a threat to its status as the word of God.”
RT @jackmjenkins: Side note as the National Prayer Service ends: Of the religious leaders who spoke, the former A/V guy in me would be remi… 53 minutes ago
RT @americamag: “To heal we must remember,” President-elect @JoeBiden said just prior to the lighting. “It’s hard sometimes to remember, bu… 2 days ago
RT @hoplutheran: DID YOU KNOW…when you come to in-person worship, we have QR codes at the welcome desk and in the sanctuary so that you can… 1 week ago
RT @ErinBrockovich: The President has not been silenced. He has a press room right in his house. He’s more than welcome to step up to the p… 1 week ago
RT @rev_heather: “I don’t trust a theologian who dismisses the beauty of science or a scientist who doesn’t believe in the power of mystery… 1 week ago
January 8, 2011 at 8:49 am
Not necessarily what Dr. Craig Nessan of Wartburg said in his lecture: “Interpreting the Bible Lutheranly: Between the Undertow and a Tsunami”.
January 8, 2011 at 10:07 am
Agreed. Excellent article Kevin.
I suspect Nessan and Taylor would have an interesting conversation.
I tend to think of Luther as between the under-determination of
postmodern interpretation and the over-determination of modern
fundamentalism.
Perhaps Wally was saying what Nessan reflected:
“Luther… understood that the Bible developed in a process subject to
the vagaries of human authorship and redaction.”