Did you mean that final enquiry to sound grumpy, Peter?

I was really enjoying this thread and, as ever, your challenge to Andrew’s historical-critical narrative approach and then I read what seemed a slightly perturbed question.

Suffice it to say, "the review," such as it is, is well on the way… I just need a few more hours of reading and thinking… my paradigm shift is not quite complete…

Meanwhile in response to your suggestion that there must be other valid ways of reading and interpreting the scriptures, I refer readers to my earlier post on the four time-honoured methods of rabbinical Judaism.

In fact, for those who don’t even want to follow a link, here they are:

The following rabbinical principles of interpretation from Judaism (courtesy of David Stern) show us a way that this is possible, without losing authenticity:

p’shat - "simple" - the plain meaning of the writer, the equivalent of grammatical-historical exegesis (note: p’shat then, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s p’shat now!)
remez - "hint" - wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p’shat. The implication is that God can hint at things which the writers themselves were unawares;
midrash - "(re)search" - an allegorical application, a species of eisegesis - reading one’s own thought’s into the text. The implication is that words of Scripture can legitimately become grist for the mill of human intellect, whereby God can guide to truths not directly related to the text at all;
sod - "secret" - a mystical or hidden meaning arrived at using numerical values of Hebrew letters, noting unusual spellings, transposing letters etc. The implication is that God invests meaning in the minutest details of Scripture, even individual letters.

The latter three are more obviously open to abuse and perhaps this is something of the struggle that many are in reaction to today.

shalom! - john