tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post3069375910530102426..comments2024-01-09T12:59:32.666+01:00Comments on Narrative and Ontology: Canon and the "history of religion"Phil Sumpterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-76151075022487668282008-09-11T18:16:00.000+02:002008-09-11T18:16:00.000+02:00I'm glad you're still reading my posts, John!Whene...I'm glad you're still reading my posts, John!<BR/><BR/>Whenever anyone says that anything is ideologically loaded they are refering to the human perception of the thing and not the thing in itself. No one doubts that things happened in the past independent of human perception. Childs' problem is with the way that the "historical" has been perceived in the secular acadamy, a perception in which the eschatological inbreaking of another dimension of reality and time is ruled out of court before one starts one's analysis. Childs is not having a dig at "historical" exegesis. His own work fully embodies it (see my forthcoming post tomorrow, along with my <A HREF="http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/2008/07/thread-summary-examples-of-canonical.html" REL="nofollow">examples of canonical exegesis</A>). In his other work he makes clear that he is redifing what history is (especially in his amazing essay <A HREF="http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/2007/12/retrospective-reading-of-old-testament.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>). This has been subject of my <A HREF="http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/2008/09/thread-summary-bible-and-historian_09.html" REL="nofollow">posts on Paul Minear</A> over the past few weeks, who expresses this this most clearly. I think his book would provide interesting reading for you, John. I don't think the word "canonical" or "narrative" comes up at all.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-67998564509677780742008-09-11T18:13:00.000+02:002008-09-11T18:13:00.000+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-24812988941141696642008-09-11T18:02:00.000+02:002008-09-11T18:02:00.000+02:00Is "the category 'historical'" really "ideological...Is "the category 'historical'" really "ideologically loaded", as you say, or does not your series of posts simply purport to show that the *task* of historical investigation is ideologically freighted? There's a big difference--the fact that historical investigation is never 100% objective does not logically entail any delegitimizing of having objective historical investigation as our goal.<BR/><BR/>So if Childs thinks he has a logical case against "historical" exegesis, what is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com