Eddie Fearon
A confessing student of Scripture, currently undertaking a Masters in Theology at Laidlaw College, Auckland, New Zealand
About the blog
This year (2012) I am studying John's Gospel and Hebrews, so expect a lot of posts on various aspects of studying these. Theological hermeneutics is never far from my mind so expect a continuing supply of posts about Scripture and interpretation.
Explorations
- Biblical Studies (17)
- Colossians (6)
- Philippians (1)
- The Gospel and Letters of John (2)
- Biblical/Theological Education (2)
- Hermeneutics (24)
- Philosophy (2)
- Quotes (12)
- Reflections (9)
- Suggested Reading (3)
- Theology (17)
- Wealth & Poverty (7)
Topics
Apostle Paul
Authority
Belief
Character
Christology
Church
Colossians
Conviction
Epistemology
Evangelism
George B. Caird
Gospel
Humility
Interpretation
Interpretive Virtue
Jesus
Kingdom of God
Knowledge
Lonergan
Mark Allan Powell
Meaning
Method
Methodology
Michael Gorman
Morality
Narrative
Narrative Theology
Notice
Notices
NT Theology
Paul
Paul's letters
Problem of evil
Propositional Theology
Prosperity
Reader-Response Criticism
Sefl-Deception
Story
Suffering
Theological Interpretation
Theology
Timothy
Tithing
Tradition
Transcendental method
TIS or Theological Commentary?
Over at Jesus Creed Scot McKnight has posted a review of a new book edited by R. Michael Allen entitled Theological Commentary: Evangelical Perspectives (T&T Clark, 2011). Scott opens the review by way of some comments regarding the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (TIS).
He writes that ‘the label “theological interpretation of Scripture” suggests a potential problem of interpretation taking precedence over textual observation. Using the label “theological commentary,” however, suggests a different method: theological reflection resulting from attention to and commentary on particular biblical texts.’
I have previously posted some thoughts on the suitability of the term TIS here. I think that the term Theological Commentary employed in this book is better suited to the sort of task we need to undertake; a task that takes historically grounded exegesis seriously, but also the history of doctrine/interpretation and contemporary engagement.
He says that “the contributors were given only a few parameters: exhibit careful exegesis, engage with other canonical texts, and then address the history of interpretation and dogmatic implications.” Sounds like a great way of proceeding with the task I have so far refered to as TIS, and may now refer to as “Theological Commentary.”
Share this:
Like this: