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 Although Luther saw the Bible as much more than a historical document, he did not find the study of the Bible as a historical document, including it’s textual errors, to be a threat to its status as the word of God.”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 @ELCA: Today is the 30th anniversary of the fall of the #BerlinWall. As we celebrate this historic symbol of freedom, we hold in our hea… 2 days ago
RT @LIRSorg: If we tell immigrants to "get in line," then shouldn't we do all we can to ensure that line is actually moving? https://t.co/r…1 week ago
RT @DTGoteraKHOU: An artist at work...
Opie Otterstad capturing the moments leading up to Game 1 of the World Series at Minute Maid Park #… 2 weeks 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”.
http://www.plts.edu/docs/Hein_Fry_2009_Nessan.pdf
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.”