Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader  Then the reason for posting the article stands. If you wish to read it, fine; if not that is also fine. |
Having read the article, I still say it has nothing to with what I am arguing. The only mildly relevant bit is his argument against the view that "the most plausible explanation for the religion of Israel derives it by a process of ideological evolution from Israel’s neighbours" but I am not doing that. The other slightly relevant thing is his point that "the necessity of interpreting them against the Near Eastern cultural background is removed" but this is simply wrong. As I noted before, there is mythopoetic language throughout the OT.
His point is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Indeed, but there are different types (or forms) of Scripture. Poetry needs to be interpreted as poetry, history as history, prophesy as prophesy and cosmogony as cosmogony. That is where his point fails. The literary form sets the context, and we all know that sound exegesis demands we take into account the context.
