historically informed interpretation

Gail Froese (gfroese@jetstream.net)
Wed, 18 Dec 1996 10:25:58 -0800

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 =
I would like to know of one. (I am not being sarcastic here...I would =
anyone to show me a good biblical "historically-informed" =


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 =