Hey everybody, here's part two of the interview that we did with John Bear.

Hope you enjoy this and thanks so much for listening.

So let's talk a little bit more about origin and scripture.

Because this is a place where I think that origin does tend to be misunderstood or mischaracterized or stereotypes.

So he's well known as an interpreter of Scripture, as we know.

And he's often obviously well known for what's called the allegorical method or is often

termed as allegory.

So for some, this approach is suspect or just a straight-up invalid way of reading scripture.

For others, it's illuminating and enlivening, and for others, it's wacky enough to be marveled at

or be amused by for a little while, write an article about it, and sort of poke at it.

But then ultimately dismiss it as just not a very good way of engaging with scripture.

So would you explain Origins' approach to the interpretation of Scripture and perhaps correct

any misconceptions about his method?

Okay.

So it characterizes an allegorical reading of scripture, as that was typically done through the last couple of centuries, really until Dulubac.

DeLubeck is the first one who really appreciated knew what origin was doing, and then that's become a subject of much reflection thereafter.

It is always, you know, origin is this wild platonic, gnostic figure from Alexandria

who does wacky interpretation of scripture and it calls it allegory and it's clearly other than

what the plain sense means. And that's becoming, that was exacerbated in the course of the

20th century because we've become conditioned,

so conditioned now to thinking that scripture is what historical criticism tells us it is.

It's an absolutely fascinating passage. Do you know, and Paul Richard Hansen's book,

...