summary Summary of the discussion after papers by Sawyer and

							Summary of the discussion after papers by Sawyer and Rowland In the extensive discussions which followed the papers hermeneutical issues and theological issues predominated, particularly the way in which one can find some way of mediating between very diverse kinds of material in the commentaries. The particular background of EKK as an ecumenical (i.e. Protestant and Roman Catholic) project inevitable raised the normative, theological questions which have been downplayed in the BBC series. The need for contextualization of interpretations in WG was stressed, and there was recognition of the need for the explanation of the social context conditioning particular interpretations. It is clear that there has been some development in this regard in the treatment of WG material, as a glance at the first and last volumes of Luz’s commentary reveals. On the issues of the presentation of the interpretations there was discussion about merely listing of different kinds of interpretation, which one of the colleagues there described as ‘lexical’ and another as return to the old catena method. One might wonder why we should be so antipathetic to the catena method, a model of commentary whose antiquity and pedigree all can recognise. This kind of anthologising approach is evident in, say, the Church’s Bible series. The catena at least has the advantage of maintaining, if somewhat woodenly, the variety of interpretative possibilities. Aesthetically, of course, it may not be as pleasing as the more discursive approach in which the particular interpretation is introduced, contexualised and discussed. Nevertheless the quality of the ‘list’ does enable the heterogeneity of the material to be apparent. One can see that there are merits in the ‘list’ format in that it makes quick reference to masses of interesting and useful data very easy. A theme to which colleagues returned again and again was the way in which commentaries of this kind tended to minimise the distinctive linguistic and related skills of the traditional NT scholar. An analogy between reading the Bible and musical performance was raised, and there was some interesting discussion of readers as audience and the author of a BBC commentary as musicologist or music critic. An important point was raised about the hermeneutics of the relationship between texts and pictures, and whether BBC and EKK authors had considered this issue in sufficient depth, in order to deal with the complex issues surrounding the visual presentation of texts. The series editors would appreciate hearing the views of

other authors on this question. On the other hand, other EKK authors recognised that in commentaries like this there was bound to be the appearance of ‘dilettante-ism’, and, indeed, one should not neglect the distinctive role of the exegete who can comment on the particular exegetical insights which emerge in the various artistic works. Another question, raised more than once, concerned the criteria for selecting and arranging the material if pride of place is not given to historical criticism and the "original meaning" of the text. It was generally assumed by the EKK authors that the historical critical approach was fundamental and that no commentary would be complete without it. There seemed to be some consensus that ethical and theological criteria should have a place in the process of selection, though little interest was expressed in ideological criticism of any kind (e.g. feminist, postcolonial etc). The notion that all books in the series should be uniform in approach and format was questioned: for example, the Jewish literature applied to OT volumes only and the contrast in format between the John and Revelation volumes. There was a real desire expressed for co-operation with EKK authors and a promise that we would receive and be able to share with our authors’ their authors’ list.