Paul J. Bodin writes:
>One only needs to read with real Talmud students for a short time to
>realize that some of their exegetical reasoning is very different than
>that used by traditional protestant biblical scholars.
Paul, the question is, do you think it is a right or wrong methodology?
Or are several contradictory methodologies all acceptible? Is there such
a thing as a wrong methodology? If so, then by what criterion would you
I agree with your comment:
>I think there are at least
>two ways in which people may reason. One is analytic, denotative and
>relatively precise, while another is (for want of a better word)
>metaphoric (see Philip Wheelwright's _Metaphor and Reality_ for a
>clearer discussion of what I mean by this).
Though without reading the text you cite I cannot be certain I have understood
exactly what you mean. But insight, intuition, hunches, and non deductive
reasoning would not (at least in my model) contradict authorial intention,
universal truth, innate reason, or the correspondance theory of truth.
And this same methodology of knowing is alive and well today, making it
(as I agree) part of the universal innate reasoning.
This is by way of saying Paul's arguement in Gal 3 couldn't be a method of
knowing and counter one of the universals.
David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: firstname.lastname@example.org
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg BITNET: djm5g@virginia
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax IBM US: usuvarg8