Replies

I think you read me wrong here. I am not addressing the Church. I’m just looking at a method of interpretation.

Why isn’t the organizing and hermeneutic....tradition of the Berean assembly, simply “a readiness of mind...searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”, enough for us today? The results of the effort seemed to be successful; many believed. Are we so different than the Jews and Greeks of Paul’s time that we need more interpretive aids than they did?

Short schematic answer. The Church provides a method of interpretation. (I was going to say "IS a method of interpretation, but I'm going to need a year or so before I feel ready to explain that.)

Forgive me if I continue to dance around the question without trying again to address it "full on". I guess I'm hoping that the sentences used to flesh out the question will evolve to a place where I think I can say something useful and direct.

Anyway, I think we are presented with two phenomena: (1)Cult of saints, especially Mary; (2)Controversies.

I would venture to say that both of these arose sort of independently of the development of the canon of the NT. And nobody was saying, Hey! We need to check this stuff with the Scriptures and only the Scriptures.

The controversies, starting with the Gentile circumcision controversy, established the Church as the bearer (or the speaker? conduit?) of an unfolding (developing) revelation. (Why weren't the Bereans called upon as "periti", experts, in the Council in Jerusalem?) What does it mean, if anything, that the Bereans are singled out for this description and notice?)

There is a discontinuity in the Biblical record, but why must we think that there was a discontinuity in the life of the Church. It is only after the Reformation tht we look back and say, Hey! Looka that! The Council of Trent closed the OT canon! But the Church for all those hundreds of years wasn't fretting about the OT canon or thinking it must be closed, not until there was a controversy.

And presumably the Church knew about the Bereans and their study of the OT to see if Jesus was the Christ. But it was only sporadically (as far as we know) that people suggested that should be the only way to study, and that it should be expanded to include the NT.

So I think the question about the Bereans and the now suggests what may be a false picture and a false discontinuity.

This is kind of smrt-alecky, but I think it's important:
Are we so different than the Jews and Greeks of Paul’s time that we need more interpretive aids than they did?
Well, there's the NT. Do we complain about needing THAT interpretive aid?

Please don't give up on me. I think we may be able to get somewhere.