One of the reasons for starting with the Epistles is that they appear to be so easy to interpret. After all, who needs any special help to understand that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23), that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23), and that "by grace you have been saved, through faith" (Ephesians 2:8)?
On the other hand, the "ease" of interpreting the Epistles can be quite deceptive, especially in a Book like 1 Corinthians. For example, "How is Paul's opinion (7:25) to be taken as God's Word?", especially when some would dislike some of the implications of that opinion.
How does the excommunication of the brother in chapter 5 relate to the contemporary church, especially when he can simply go down the street to another church? What is the point of chapters 12 - 14, if one is in a local church where charismatic gifts are not accepted as valid for our century? And how do we get around the clear implication in chapter 11:2-16 that women should wear head covering when praying and prophesying?
It becomes clear that the Epistles are not as easy to interpret as is often thought.
A. The Nature of the Epistles
Before we look specifically at 1 Corinthians, some general words are in order about all Epistles (all the New Testament except the four Gospels, Acts, and Revelation).
There is one thing that all of the Epistles have in common, and this is the crucial thing to note in reading and interpreting them: they are all what are technically called occasional documents (arising out of and intended for a specific occasion), and they are from the first century. Although inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus belonging to all time, they were first written out of the context of the author to the context of the original recipients. It is precisely these factors - that they are occasional and that they belong to the first century - that make their interpretation difficult at times.
Their occasional nature must be taken seriously. This means that they were called forth by some special circumstance, either from the reader's side or the author's. Usually the occasion was some kind of behavior that needed correcting, or a doctrinal error that needed setting right.
Most of our problems in interpreting the Epistles are due to the fact that they are occasional. We have the answers, but we do not always know what the questions or problems were, or even if there was a problem. It is much like listening to one end of a telephone conversation and trying to figure out who is on the other end and what the unseen party is saying.
The occasional nature of the Epistles also means that they are not first of all theological treatises. There is theology implied, but it is always "task theology," theology being written to bear on the task at hand.
NEXT POST: The Historical Context
Monday, November 02, 2009
Monday, October 05, 2009
The Question of Language
The problem has to do with the transferring of words and ideas from one language to another.
There are three basic theories of translation:
1. Literal: The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the exact words and phrasing in the original language, yet still make sense in the receptor language. A literal translation will keep the historical distance intact at all points.
2. Free: The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to another, with less concern about using the exact words of the original. A free translation, sometimes called a paraphrase, tries to eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible.
3. Dynamic Equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and grammatical constructions of the original language into precise equivalents in the receptor language. The translation keeps historical distance on all historical and most factual matters, but "updates" matters of language, grammar, and style.
The several translations of the whole Bible that are currently easily accessible might be placed on a historical-distance scale in the following way:
LITERAL: King James Version (1611); New American Standard Bible(1960); Revised Standard Version (1952);
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT: New International Version (1973); New American Bible (1970); The Message (1993); Good News Bible (1976); The Jerusalem Bible (1966); New English Bible (1961);
FREE: Phillips; Living Bible.
The best translational theory is dynamic equivalence. A literal translation is often helpful as a second source. The problem with a literal translation is that it keeps distance at the wrong places - in language and grammar. The translator often renders the Greek or Hebrew into English that is never written or spoken that way. It is like translating "maison blanc" from French to English as "house white". For example, no native English-speaking person would have said "coals of fire" (Romans 5:20), and yet, that is the literal rendering of the Greek, but what it means in English is "burning coals" (NIV) or "live coals" (NEB).
The problem with a free translation, especially for study purposes, is that the translator updates the original author too much. A free translation is always done by a single translator and comes too close to becoming a commentary. This is especially true of the popular, but unfortunately not too accurate, Living Bible. We can live with such translations as "flashlight" (Psalm 119:105), or "handshakes" (1 Peter 5:14), but to translate the Greek word charismata ("spiritual gifts") as "special abilities" in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is to take too much liberty. The Living Bible translation of 1 Corinthians 11:10, "as a sign that she is under man's authority," is especially misleading since the original implies that she is the one who has the authority.
The way various translations handle the problem of "historical distance" can be seen by looking at some of the problems involved:
1. Weights, Measures, Money
This is a particularly difficult area. Do we translate the Greek and Hebrew terms ("ephah," "homer," etc.), or do we try to find their English equivalent? If you choose to go with equivalents in weights and measures, do you use the standard "pounds" and "feet", or do you look to the future and translate "liters" and "meters"? And no matter what you choose to use, in just a few years inflation will have made a mockery out of your translation.
If you can, look at the following examples:
Isaiah 5:10 (NASB & GNB)
Matthew 18:24,28 (NASB & GNB)
2. Euphemisms
Almost all languages have euphemisms for matters of sex and toilet. And so a translator has three choices: (1) Translate literally and leave the English speaking reader somewhat bewildered or guessing, (2) translate the literal equivalent and run the risk of offending or shocking the reader, or (3) translate with an equivalent euphemism.
Option 3 is probably the best. To have Rachel say, "I'm having my period" (Gen. 31:35 NIV) is to be preferred over the literal "the manner of women is upon me" (KJV). Similarly, "He forced her, and lay with her" (2 Sam. 13:14 KJV) becomes simply "He raped her" in the NIV.
It is also possible for a translator to miss the meaning of a phrase. Such as in 1 Corinthians 7:1 NIV: "It is good for a man not to marry." The phrase "to touch a woman" in every other case in antiquity means to have sexual intercourse with a woman, and never means anything close to "marry." The NAB has found the preferred equivalent: "A man is better off having no relations with a woman."
3. Vocabulary
It is finding the precise right word that makes translation so difficult. Many Greek and Hebrew words have ranges of meaning that are different from anything we have in English. And many of these words have different shades of meaning.
Which translation, then, should you read? The NIV and The Message are as good a translation as you can get. The GNB and the NAB are also very good.
NEXT POST: The Epistles
There are three basic theories of translation:
1. Literal: The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the exact words and phrasing in the original language, yet still make sense in the receptor language. A literal translation will keep the historical distance intact at all points.
2. Free: The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to another, with less concern about using the exact words of the original. A free translation, sometimes called a paraphrase, tries to eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible.
3. Dynamic Equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and grammatical constructions of the original language into precise equivalents in the receptor language. The translation keeps historical distance on all historical and most factual matters, but "updates" matters of language, grammar, and style.
The several translations of the whole Bible that are currently easily accessible might be placed on a historical-distance scale in the following way:
LITERAL: King James Version (1611); New American Standard Bible(1960); Revised Standard Version (1952);
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT: New International Version (1973); New American Bible (1970); The Message (1993); Good News Bible (1976); The Jerusalem Bible (1966); New English Bible (1961);
FREE: Phillips; Living Bible.
The best translational theory is dynamic equivalence. A literal translation is often helpful as a second source. The problem with a literal translation is that it keeps distance at the wrong places - in language and grammar. The translator often renders the Greek or Hebrew into English that is never written or spoken that way. It is like translating "maison blanc" from French to English as "house white". For example, no native English-speaking person would have said "coals of fire" (Romans 5:20), and yet, that is the literal rendering of the Greek, but what it means in English is "burning coals" (NIV) or "live coals" (NEB).
The problem with a free translation, especially for study purposes, is that the translator updates the original author too much. A free translation is always done by a single translator and comes too close to becoming a commentary. This is especially true of the popular, but unfortunately not too accurate, Living Bible. We can live with such translations as "flashlight" (Psalm 119:105), or "handshakes" (1 Peter 5:14), but to translate the Greek word charismata ("spiritual gifts") as "special abilities" in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is to take too much liberty. The Living Bible translation of 1 Corinthians 11:10, "as a sign that she is under man's authority," is especially misleading since the original implies that she is the one who has the authority.
The way various translations handle the problem of "historical distance" can be seen by looking at some of the problems involved:
1. Weights, Measures, Money
This is a particularly difficult area. Do we translate the Greek and Hebrew terms ("ephah," "homer," etc.), or do we try to find their English equivalent? If you choose to go with equivalents in weights and measures, do you use the standard "pounds" and "feet", or do you look to the future and translate "liters" and "meters"? And no matter what you choose to use, in just a few years inflation will have made a mockery out of your translation.
If you can, look at the following examples:
Isaiah 5:10 (NASB & GNB)
Matthew 18:24,28 (NASB & GNB)
2. Euphemisms
Almost all languages have euphemisms for matters of sex and toilet. And so a translator has three choices: (1) Translate literally and leave the English speaking reader somewhat bewildered or guessing, (2) translate the literal equivalent and run the risk of offending or shocking the reader, or (3) translate with an equivalent euphemism.
Option 3 is probably the best. To have Rachel say, "I'm having my period" (Gen. 31:35 NIV) is to be preferred over the literal "the manner of women is upon me" (KJV). Similarly, "He forced her, and lay with her" (2 Sam. 13:14 KJV) becomes simply "He raped her" in the NIV.
It is also possible for a translator to miss the meaning of a phrase. Such as in 1 Corinthians 7:1 NIV: "It is good for a man not to marry." The phrase "to touch a woman" in every other case in antiquity means to have sexual intercourse with a woman, and never means anything close to "marry." The NAB has found the preferred equivalent: "A man is better off having no relations with a woman."
3. Vocabulary
It is finding the precise right word that makes translation so difficult. Many Greek and Hebrew words have ranges of meaning that are different from anything we have in English. And many of these words have different shades of meaning.
Which translation, then, should you read? The NIV and The Message are as good a translation as you can get. The GNB and the NAB are also very good.
NEXT POST: The Epistles
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The Science of Translation
The KJV was based on poor, late manuscripts, while more contemporary translations like the NIV are based upon earlier, more reliable manuscripts.
1 Samuel 8:16
KJV "your goodliest young men and your asses"
NIV "the best of your cattle and donkeys"
The NIV is taken from the Septuagint, which was translated about 250 BC. Whereas, the KJV follows a medieval Hebrew text that actually miscopies one word. The difference between "young men" and "cattle" in Hebrew is literally one letter, which was miscopied by a scribe long after the Septuagint.
Mark 1:2
KJV "As it is written in the prophets..."
NIV "It is written in Isaiah the prophet..."
The text of the NIV is found in all of the earliest documents and is the only text known by the Church Fathers.
1 Coritnhians 11:29
KJV "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily"
NIV "anyone who eats and drinks"
The word "unworthily" is not found in any of the early manuscripts.
The KJV is the most widely used translation in the world. It has coined phrases that will be forever embedded in our language. However, for the N.T., the only Greek text available to the 1611 translators was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes make any difference to us doctrinally, but they do often make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts.
This is why, for study, you should nuse almost any modern translation rather than the KJV.
Next Post: The Questions of Language
1 Samuel 8:16
KJV "your goodliest young men and your asses"
NIV "the best of your cattle and donkeys"
The NIV is taken from the Septuagint, which was translated about 250 BC. Whereas, the KJV follows a medieval Hebrew text that actually miscopies one word. The difference between "young men" and "cattle" in Hebrew is literally one letter, which was miscopied by a scribe long after the Septuagint.
Mark 1:2
KJV "As it is written in the prophets..."
NIV "It is written in Isaiah the prophet..."
The text of the NIV is found in all of the earliest documents and is the only text known by the Church Fathers.
1 Coritnhians 11:29
KJV "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily"
NIV "anyone who eats and drinks"
The word "unworthily" is not found in any of the early manuscripts.
The KJV is the most widely used translation in the world. It has coined phrases that will be forever embedded in our language. However, for the N.T., the only Greek text available to the 1611 translators was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes make any difference to us doctrinally, but they do often make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts.
This is why, for study, you should nuse almost any modern translation rather than the KJV.
Next Post: The Questions of Language
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Basic Tool - A Good Translation
The 66 books of the Protestant Bible were originally written in three different languages: Hebrew (most of the O.T.), Aramaic (half of Daniel and 2 passages in Ezra), and Greek (all of the N.T.). We assume that most of the readers of the Bible do not know these languages. For this reason, the basic tool for reading and studying the Bible is a good English translation, or perhaps several good English translations.
The trouble with using only one translation, be it ever so good, is that you are committed to the exegetical choices of that translation. The translation you are using may be correct; but it also may be wrong.
Let's take, for example, several different translations of 1 Corinthians 7:36:
KJV "If any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin..."
NASB "If a man think that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter..."
NIV "If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to..."
NEB "If a man has a partner in celibacy and feels that he is not behaving properly towards her..."
The KJV is very literal, but not very helpful, since it leaves the term "virgin" and the relationship between the "man" and "his virgin" ambiguous. The Corinthians, of course, would have understood exactly what he meant. In this case, the NIV reflects the best option here.
It is probably a good practice to use mainly one translation, provided it's a really good one. This will aid in memorization, as well as give you consistency. However, for the study of the Bible, you should use several well-chosen translations. This will help to highlight where difficult translations lie.
Next Post: The Science of Translation
The trouble with using only one translation, be it ever so good, is that you are committed to the exegetical choices of that translation. The translation you are using may be correct; but it also may be wrong.
Let's take, for example, several different translations of 1 Corinthians 7:36:
KJV "If any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin..."
NASB "If a man think that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter..."
NIV "If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to..."
NEB "If a man has a partner in celibacy and feels that he is not behaving properly towards her..."
The KJV is very literal, but not very helpful, since it leaves the term "virgin" and the relationship between the "man" and "his virgin" ambiguous. The Corinthians, of course, would have understood exactly what he meant. In this case, the NIV reflects the best option here.
It is probably a good practice to use mainly one translation, provided it's a really good one. This will aid in memorization, as well as give you consistency. However, for the study of the Bible, you should use several well-chosen translations. This will help to highlight where difficult translations lie.
Next Post: The Science of Translation
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Learning To Do Exegesis
At its highest level, exegesis requires knowledge of many things most of us know little, if anything, about: the biblical languages; Jewish, Semitic, and Hellenistic backgrounds. But you can learn to do good exegesis.
The key is to learn to read the text carefully and then to ask the right questions of the text.
There are two basis kinds of questions one should ask of every biblical passage: those that relate to context and those that relate to content. The questions of context are also of two kinds: historical and literary. Let's look at each one.
1. Historical context
The historical context, which will differ from book to book, has to do with several things: the time and culture of the author and his readers, which includes the geographical, topographical, and political factors that are relevant; and the occaision of the book, letter, or psalm, etc.
It makes a difference in understanding to know the personal background of Amos, Hosea, or Isaiah, or that Haggai prophesied after the exile, or to understand the differences between the cities of Corinth and Philippi. One's reading of the parables of Jesus is greatly enhanced by knowing something about the customs of Jesus' day.
To answer most of these kinds of questions, one will need some outside help. A good Bible dictionary will generally supply the need here.
The more important question of historical context has to do with the occaision and purpose of each biblical book.
The answer to this question is usually found within the book itself. But you need to learn to read with your eyes open. You might even consult your Bible dictionary or the Introduction to a good commentary on the book, or a look at Eerdman's Handbook to the Bible. But make your own obervations first.
2. Literary context
Essentially, literary context means that words only have meaning in sentences, and for the most part biblical sentences only have meaning in relation to preceding and succeeding sentences.
The most important contextual question you will ever ask is "What is the point?" We must try to trace the author's train of thought. Remember, the goal of exegesis is to find out what the original author intended.
a. Questions of content
"Content" has to do with the meanings of words and their grammatical relationships in sentences. It also includes "historical context," for example, the meaning of denarius, or a Sabbath day's journey, or "high places," etc.
b. Tools
For the most part, you can do good exegesis with minimal tools. The most important tools are: a good Bible dictionary, a good Bible handbook, a good translation, and good commentaries. For reading or studying the Bible book by book, these are the essentials.
Next Post: "The Second Task: Hermeneutics
The key is to learn to read the text carefully and then to ask the right questions of the text.
There are two basis kinds of questions one should ask of every biblical passage: those that relate to context and those that relate to content. The questions of context are also of two kinds: historical and literary. Let's look at each one.
1. Historical context
The historical context, which will differ from book to book, has to do with several things: the time and culture of the author and his readers, which includes the geographical, topographical, and political factors that are relevant; and the occaision of the book, letter, or psalm, etc.
It makes a difference in understanding to know the personal background of Amos, Hosea, or Isaiah, or that Haggai prophesied after the exile, or to understand the differences between the cities of Corinth and Philippi. One's reading of the parables of Jesus is greatly enhanced by knowing something about the customs of Jesus' day.
To answer most of these kinds of questions, one will need some outside help. A good Bible dictionary will generally supply the need here.
The more important question of historical context has to do with the occaision and purpose of each biblical book.
The answer to this question is usually found within the book itself. But you need to learn to read with your eyes open. You might even consult your Bible dictionary or the Introduction to a good commentary on the book, or a look at Eerdman's Handbook to the Bible. But make your own obervations first.
2. Literary context
Essentially, literary context means that words only have meaning in sentences, and for the most part biblical sentences only have meaning in relation to preceding and succeeding sentences.
The most important contextual question you will ever ask is "What is the point?" We must try to trace the author's train of thought. Remember, the goal of exegesis is to find out what the original author intended.
a. Questions of content
"Content" has to do with the meanings of words and their grammatical relationships in sentences. It also includes "historical context," for example, the meaning of denarius, or a Sabbath day's journey, or "high places," etc.
b. Tools
For the most part, you can do good exegesis with minimal tools. The most important tools are: a good Bible dictionary, a good Bible handbook, a good translation, and good commentaries. For reading or studying the Bible book by book, these are the essentials.
Next Post: "The Second Task: Hermeneutics
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The First Task: Exegesis
Exegesis is the systematic study of the Scripture to discover the original, intended meaning. This is basically a historical task. It is the attempt to hear the Word as the original recipients were to have heard it, to find out what was the original intent of the words of the Bible.
How many times have you heard or said, "What Jesus meant by that was..."? Those are exegetical expressions.
The problem with much of this, however, is:
It is too selective, and the sources consulted are not true "experts".
1) The problem with "selective" exegesis is that one will often read one's own, completely foreign, ideas into a text and thereby make God's Word something other than what God really said. For example: Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, "Abstain from all appearance of evil" (KJV). When we look at it exegetically, we realize that Paul is giving final instructions on how to deal with "prophetic utterances", and when something is not of God we are to toss it aside. To make this text mean something else is to abuse the Word of God and make it mean what God did not intend it to mean.
2) When it is necessary to consult an "expert", use the best source possible. For example, in Mark 10:23 (Matt. 19:23; Luke 18:24), Jesus says, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God." He then adds: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom." It is often said that there was a gate in Jerusalem known as the "Needle's Eye," which camels could go through only by kneeling, and with great difficulty. The point of this "interpretation" is that a camel could in fact go through the "Needle's Eye." The trouble with this "exegesis," however, is that it is simply not true. There never was such a gate in Jerusalem at any time in its history. It is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, and that was precisely Jesus' point. It is impossible for one who trusts in riches to enter the Kingdom. It takes a miracle for a rich person to get saved, which is quite the point of what follows: "All things are possible with God."
Next Post: Learning to do exegesis
How many times have you heard or said, "What Jesus meant by that was..."? Those are exegetical expressions.
The problem with much of this, however, is:
It is too selective, and the sources consulted are not true "experts".
1) The problem with "selective" exegesis is that one will often read one's own, completely foreign, ideas into a text and thereby make God's Word something other than what God really said. For example: Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, "Abstain from all appearance of evil" (KJV). When we look at it exegetically, we realize that Paul is giving final instructions on how to deal with "prophetic utterances", and when something is not of God we are to toss it aside. To make this text mean something else is to abuse the Word of God and make it mean what God did not intend it to mean.
2) When it is necessary to consult an "expert", use the best source possible. For example, in Mark 10:23 (Matt. 19:23; Luke 18:24), Jesus says, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God." He then adds: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom." It is often said that there was a gate in Jerusalem known as the "Needle's Eye," which camels could go through only by kneeling, and with great difficulty. The point of this "interpretation" is that a camel could in fact go through the "Needle's Eye." The trouble with this "exegesis," however, is that it is simply not true. There never was such a gate in Jerusalem at any time in its history. It is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, and that was precisely Jesus' point. It is impossible for one who trusts in riches to enter the Kingdom. It takes a miracle for a rich person to get saved, which is quite the point of what follows: "All things are possible with God."
Next Post: Learning to do exegesis
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Nature of Scripture
As Professor George Ladd once put it: "The Bible is the Word of God given in the words of people in history." It is this dual nature of the Bible that demands of us the task of interpretation.
Because the Bible is God's Word, it has eternal relevance; it speaks to all mankind, in every age and in every culture. Because it is God's Word, we must listen - and obey. But because God chose to speak His Word through human words in history, every book in the Bible also has historical particularity; each document is conditioned by the language, time, and culture in which it was originally written. Interpretation of the Bible is demanded by the "tension" that exists between its eternal relevance and its historical particularity.
There are, for example, Christians who, on the basis of Deuteronomy 22:5 ("A woman must not wear men's clothing," NIV) argue that women should not wear slacks or shorts. But the same people seldom take literally the other imperatives in that list....(vs. 8,9, and 12).
1. In speaking through real persons, in a variety of circumstances, over a 1500 year period, God's Word was expressed in the vocabulary and thought patterns of those persons and conditioned by the culture of those times and circumstances. That is to say, God's Word to us was first of all His Word to them. Our problem is that we are so far removed from them in time, and sometimes in thought. This is the major reason one needs to learn to interpret the Bible. If God's word about women wearing men's clothing or people having parapets around houses is to speak to us, we first need to know what it said to its original hearers - and why.
FIRST, one has to hear the Word they heard in order to understand what was said to them back then and there.
SECOND, one must learn to hear that same Word in the here and now.
2. To interpret properly the "then and there" of the biblical texts, one must not only know some general rules that apply to all words of the Bible, but one needs to learn the special rules that apply to each different literary form, of which there are many - narrative history, geneologies, chronicles, laws of all kinds, poetry of all kinds, proverbs, prophetic oracles, riddles, drama, biological sketches, parables, letters, sermons, and apocalypses.
Next Post: The First Task: Exegesis
Because the Bible is God's Word, it has eternal relevance; it speaks to all mankind, in every age and in every culture. Because it is God's Word, we must listen - and obey. But because God chose to speak His Word through human words in history, every book in the Bible also has historical particularity; each document is conditioned by the language, time, and culture in which it was originally written. Interpretation of the Bible is demanded by the "tension" that exists between its eternal relevance and its historical particularity.
There are, for example, Christians who, on the basis of Deuteronomy 22:5 ("A woman must not wear men's clothing," NIV) argue that women should not wear slacks or shorts. But the same people seldom take literally the other imperatives in that list....(vs. 8,9, and 12).
1. In speaking through real persons, in a variety of circumstances, over a 1500 year period, God's Word was expressed in the vocabulary and thought patterns of those persons and conditioned by the culture of those times and circumstances. That is to say, God's Word to us was first of all His Word to them. Our problem is that we are so far removed from them in time, and sometimes in thought. This is the major reason one needs to learn to interpret the Bible. If God's word about women wearing men's clothing or people having parapets around houses is to speak to us, we first need to know what it said to its original hearers - and why.
FIRST, one has to hear the Word they heard in order to understand what was said to them back then and there.
SECOND, one must learn to hear that same Word in the here and now.
2. To interpret properly the "then and there" of the biblical texts, one must not only know some general rules that apply to all words of the Bible, but one needs to learn the special rules that apply to each different literary form, of which there are many - narrative history, geneologies, chronicles, laws of all kinds, poetry of all kinds, proverbs, prophetic oracles, riddles, drama, biological sketches, parables, letters, sermons, and apocalypses.
Next Post: The First Task: Exegesis
Monday, August 10, 2009
The Reader Is An Interpreter
Whether you've thought about it or not, every reader is at the same time an interpreter. We invariably bring to the text all that we are, with all of our experiences, culture, and prior understandings of words and ideas. Sometimes what we bring to the text, unintentionally, leads us astray, or else causes us to read all kinds of foreign ideas into the text.
When a person in our culture reads the word "cross," centuries of Christian art and symbolism cause most people automatically to think of the Roman cross (t), although it was more likely shaped like the letter "T."
When we read texts about the church at worship we automatically see people sitting in a building with pews, much like we use today.
The need to interpret can be seen by simply noticing the church as it is today. The contemporary church makes it abundantly clear that not all "plain meanins" are equally plain to all.
There are those who would argue that women should keep silent in the church on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and at the same time deny the validity of speaking in tongues and prophecy, the very context in which the "silence" passage occurs.
For some, the Bible "plainly teaches" baptism by immersion; others believe they can make a biblical case for infant baptism. Both "eternal security" and the possibility of "losing one's salvation" are preached in the church, but never by the same person. Yet both are affirmed as the plain meaning of biblical texts.
Besides these recognizable differences among "Bible-believing Christians," there are also all kinds of strange ideas and teachings floating around. People are always bending the truth by the way they select texts from the Bible. every imaginable heresy or practice claims to be "supported" by a text.
Even among more biblically orthodox believers there are many strange ideas that manage to gain acceptance. Usually, because somebody decides to take a particular text out of its legitimate context for the purpose of supporting their own pet beliefs.
Next Posting: "The Nature of Scripture"
When a person in our culture reads the word "cross," centuries of Christian art and symbolism cause most people automatically to think of the Roman cross (t), although it was more likely shaped like the letter "T."
When we read texts about the church at worship we automatically see people sitting in a building with pews, much like we use today.
The need to interpret can be seen by simply noticing the church as it is today. The contemporary church makes it abundantly clear that not all "plain meanins" are equally plain to all.
There are those who would argue that women should keep silent in the church on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and at the same time deny the validity of speaking in tongues and prophecy, the very context in which the "silence" passage occurs.
For some, the Bible "plainly teaches" baptism by immersion; others believe they can make a biblical case for infant baptism. Both "eternal security" and the possibility of "losing one's salvation" are preached in the church, but never by the same person. Yet both are affirmed as the plain meaning of biblical texts.
Besides these recognizable differences among "Bible-believing Christians," there are also all kinds of strange ideas and teachings floating around. People are always bending the truth by the way they select texts from the Bible. every imaginable heresy or practice claims to be "supported" by a text.
Even among more biblically orthodox believers there are many strange ideas that manage to gain acceptance. Usually, because somebody decides to take a particular text out of its legitimate context for the purpose of supporting their own pet beliefs.
Next Posting: "The Nature of Scripture"
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Rightly Dividing The Word of Truth
THE NEED TO INTERPRET:
Every so often you might hear someone say with great feeling, "You don't have to interpret the Bible, just read it and do what it says." They would argue that "any person with half a brain can read it and understand it. The problem with too many preachers and teachers is that they dig around so much they tend to muddy the waters. What was clear to us when we read it isn't so clear any more."
Well, there probably is a little truth to that. And we agree that the Bible should not be an obscure book if studied and read properly. I am convinced that the single most serious problem people have with the Bible is not their "lack" of understanding, but with the fact that they understand most things too well. The real problem is with obeying it - putting it into practice.
We also have to agree that the preacher or teacher is often prone to dig first and look later, and thereby cover up the plain meaning of the text, which often simply lies on the surface. There is one thing that needs to be repeated often: the aim of good interpretation is not uniqueness; one is not trying to discover what no one else has ever seen before.
Interpretation that aims at, or thrives on, uniqueness can usually be attributed to pride (an attempt to "out clever" the rest of the world), a false understanding of spirituality (the Bible is full of deep spiritual truths just waiting to be mined by a spiritually sensitive person with special insight), or vested interests (the need to support a theological bias). Unique interpretations are usually wrong.
The aim of good interpretation is to get at the "plain meaning of the text." And the most important ingredient one brings to that task is common sense. The test of good interpretation is that it makes good sense of the text.
Next Post: "The Reader Is An Interpreter
Every so often you might hear someone say with great feeling, "You don't have to interpret the Bible, just read it and do what it says." They would argue that "any person with half a brain can read it and understand it. The problem with too many preachers and teachers is that they dig around so much they tend to muddy the waters. What was clear to us when we read it isn't so clear any more."
Well, there probably is a little truth to that. And we agree that the Bible should not be an obscure book if studied and read properly. I am convinced that the single most serious problem people have with the Bible is not their "lack" of understanding, but with the fact that they understand most things too well. The real problem is with obeying it - putting it into practice.
We also have to agree that the preacher or teacher is often prone to dig first and look later, and thereby cover up the plain meaning of the text, which often simply lies on the surface. There is one thing that needs to be repeated often: the aim of good interpretation is not uniqueness; one is not trying to discover what no one else has ever seen before.
Interpretation that aims at, or thrives on, uniqueness can usually be attributed to pride (an attempt to "out clever" the rest of the world), a false understanding of spirituality (the Bible is full of deep spiritual truths just waiting to be mined by a spiritually sensitive person with special insight), or vested interests (the need to support a theological bias). Unique interpretations are usually wrong.
The aim of good interpretation is to get at the "plain meaning of the text." And the most important ingredient one brings to that task is common sense. The test of good interpretation is that it makes good sense of the text.
Next Post: "The Reader Is An Interpreter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
