Did the text change, did we get better historical/exegetical/hermeneutical tools?

This is a key question, and I think the answer, in general, is “Yes.” One of the benefits, I think, of post-Reformation (and even post-Enlightenment thinking, Lord help us!) is the willingness to recognise the Bible as a text, with cultural setting, genre etc. In other words, the whole structure of historical-grammatical exegesis allows us a “better tool”. Post-modernity, too, has introduced a basic humility in interpretation and a willingness to grant a hearing to the “voices at the margins” (no matter how NT Wright may use this phrase with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek).

Thus, we are aware of differing roles for women in today’s society, the influence of sexism on interpretation, etc. I would argue that the hermeneutic involved for many social and personal issues is almost identical, whether it be slavery, women, or inclusion of gay/lesbian people in the Church. As much as we may be uncomfortable with this, the solution is not to selectively apply a critical-realist reading!

Or so I think. Just my two cents.