- Wimsatt and Beardsley, “The Intentional Fallacy,” 7, quoting Plato’s
Socrates to that effect. - Keesey, Contexts for Criticism , 284.
- Keesey, Contexts for Criticism , 374 and especially 375.
- Keesey, Contexts for Criticism , 458. Of course, whether or not this is a
strength in relation to our purposes would need to be closely examined. - Wimsatt and Beardsley, “The Intentional Fallacy,” 5.
- Keesey, Contexts for Criticism , 284.
- Keesey, Contexts for Criticism , 287–288.
- Keesey, Contexts for Criticism , 289.
- Keesey, Contexts for Criticism , 381.
- Tate, Handbook for Biblical Interpretation , s.v. “Deconstruction.”
- Keesey, Contexts for Criticism , 458.
- Robert John Russell, “Eschatology and Scientifi c Cosmology: From
Confl ict to Interaction,” in What God Knows: Time and the Question of
Divine Knowledge, ed. Harry Lee Poe and J. Stanley Mattson (Waco, TX:
Baylor University Press, 2002), 103. - Russell builds his case starting with Ian Barbour’s critical realist theory of
truth (Ian G. Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures
Volume One [San Francisco: CA: Harper & Row, 1990] and affi rms John
Polkinghorne’s assertion that critical realism best explains the success of
science (John C. Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist: Refl ections of a
Bottom up Thinker [New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994], 32).
Russell references Imre Lakatos as applied by Nancey Murphey (Nancey
Murphy, Theology in the Age of Scientifi c Reasoning [Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1990], 58–61), and Philip Clayton (Philip Clayton,
Explanation from Physics to Theology: An Essay in Rationality and Religion
[New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989], 230) to explicate how
theology and science respond similarly to novel facts. - Denis O. Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to
Evolution (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008); he introduces his “Message-
Incident Principle” on pages 110–111, and then frequently refers to it
throughout the rest of the book. One could wish that he would have used
a term other than “ancient science ,” since “science” may imply modern
methodologies that are used in order to discover new knowledge.
Interestingly enough, his approach is only incrementally different from the
classic method of “principlizing,” i.e., deriving theological principles from
a text while not carrying forward specifi c cultural characteristics or prac-
tices, which is often taught in elementary hermeneutics courses. See, for
example, J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word: A
Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible , 3rd
ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), Chap. 14.
294 M. TENNESON ET AL.