Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 4

In discussing Romans 9, Finny rejected the strategy of putting difficult passages “in quotes” as an interlocutor, appealing to early readers like Chrysostom and Origen; what does this lesson imply about the authority of the early church’s reading habits for guarding us from clever modern interpretive moves?

Another way to ask: Finny said we shouldn’t dodge hard Bible passages and pointed to early readers like Chrysostom and Origen. What should the early church’s way of reading the Bible count for when judging clever modern interpretations?

Direct Answer

Finny implies early church reading habits are a valuable check: before adopting a daring interpretive move (like inventing an interlocutor), we should ask whether early, competent readers heard the text that way.

Support from Transcript:

He describes the strategy: taking a difficult section and “put[ting] it in quotes,” attributing it to “a foreign voice that Paul is rebutting.”
He warns this can become arbitrary: “Is it valid to put quotes around any block of text that we don’t like?”
He notes it has been used “to ridiculous extremes,” even turning “huge blocks… half chapters or full chapters” into non-Pauline interlocutor speech.
He calls it “a bold move… a daring move,” requiring “good ground” because it may not fit “the normal conventions” of Romans.
His key test: “go to the early church and ask, did they read an interlocutor into it?” He cites “John Chrysostom and Origen” as not reading one.

Discussion Follow-ups

What makes an interpretive move “too convenient” to trust? How should Christians weigh early church reception without treating it as infallible, yet still using it to resist novelty-for-novelty’s-sake?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 4 of 10