Gary D. Collier quotes:

>     There is no possibility of accepting Paul's message while
>     simultaneously rejecting the legitimacy of the scriptural
>     interpretation that sustains it.  If Paul's way of reading the
>     testimony of the Law and the Prophets is wrong, then his gospel
>     does constitute a betrayal of Israel and Israel's God, and his
>     hermeneutic can only lead us astray.  If, on the other hand, his
>     material claims are in any sense true, then we must go back and
>     learn from him how to read Scripture.  (p. 182)

and then comments:

>For the present discussion, I find it unsatisfactory to place current
>hermeneutical practices beside ancient Mediterranean practices and
>to judge the ancient practices as inferior or "wrong."

I agree 100% with the quotation, and have come to the conclusion that Paul
is not using Midrash techniques, which I would call wrong without the
quotation marks.  I still maintain that an interpretation which understands
Paul to be dealing within innate reason, correspondance theory of truth,
and authorial intent as determinant of meaning is more likely to be Paul's
intent than one where Paul is not working within these parameters.

Is the only reason you would be hesitant to label allegory and midrash wrong
because you fear Paul engages in it?  If Paul did not engage in it would
you be more likely to label it wrong?  Is there any methodology which you
would be willing to label wrong?  Again, I ask, on what basis?

David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg   BITNET: djm5g@virginia
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax   IBM US: usuvarg8