Re: Q?????

From: Michael W. Holmes (
Date: Fri Oct 20 1995 - 09:53:49 EDT

Re the following posting by Matthew Morgan a few days ago:
1) I heartily agree with Carl Conrad's judicious reply;
2) Linnemann's book (and article) is the passionate and heartfelt cry of
a "convert," and must be respected as such, but that does not make it a
reasoned academic discourse in the customary sense of the term, to which
a reasoned reply can be made;
3) Bultmann himself, some decades ago, wrote a justly famous essay whose
title asked, "Is exegesis without presuppostions possible?" His answer,
as I recall it, was a resounding "no". To write as if Linnemann suddenly
discovered something new seems a bit naive (to put it politely).
--Mike Holmes

On Wed, 18 Oct 1995, Matthew Ashley Morgan wrote:

> Has anyone else bothered to mention Eta Linneman's article in last
> month's Bible Review? Here we have one of the foremost former Bultmann
> scholars who is basically saying that it is all garbage. The case is closed
> as far as I'm concerned. Even the rejoinder in this month's Bible Review
> said absolutely nothing that we don't already know. Linneman's point is
> exactly right! We're talking about two completely different world views
> here as to how we even approach the issue. It all begins with
> presuppostions, and I most happily will affirm that I have a Christian
> Evangelical presupposition holding to firm view of Scripture. I'm just
> waiting for ALL critics to announce that they too have
> presuppostions...We're waiting!!!
> Matthew Morgan
> The Master's College

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:30 EDT