Page History

...

(5) It does not absolutize its own objective in questioning the text btJ by challenging or denying the propriety ofunderstandings of understandings and/or interpretations having different objectives.

...

4. By this standard, what Robert Morgan/John Barton mean by "a theological interpretation of the Bible" is nothing of the kind, because it is none of the different things that may be properly called an "interpretation" of the biblical writings.

...

What is special about "a theological interpretation of the Bible" in my sense of the words, then, is completely exhausted by its special interpretandum, the biblical writings. In all other respects, it is indistinguishable from the existentialst existentialist interpretation of any other text(s). This means that, even as it satisfies the same five conditions that any proper interpretation satisfies and must satisfy, it differs from other ways of interpreting the biblical writings, insofar as it does so, only in that its objective in questioning them is provided by the existential question about the meaning of human existence. As an existentialist interpretation, however, its interpretans consists in the same concepts and terms as any other such interpretation -- namely, those in which the existential question and, therefore, any answer that may be given to it can be understood and appropriately set forth.

...