- What Is Bible Hermeneutics
- Basic Principles Of Biblical Hermeneutics
- Principles Of Bible Interpretation Hermeneutics
Part of a series on the | ||
Bible | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Bible bookBible portal |
Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the broader field of hermeneutics which involves the study of principles of interpretation for all forms of communication, nonverbal and verbal.[1]
While Jewish and Christian Biblical hermeneutics have some overlap and dialogue, they have distinctly separate interpretative traditions.
- 2Christian
- 3Techniques
- 5References
Talmudical[edit]
Talmudical hermeneutics (Hebrew: approximately, מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) refers to Jewish methods for the investigation and determination of the meaning of the Hebrew Bible, as well as rules by which Jewish law could be established. One well-known summary of these principles appears in the Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael.[citation needed]
Methods by which the Talmud explores the meaning of scripture:
- grammar and exegesis
- the interpretation of certain words and letters and apparently superfluous and/or missing words or letters, and prefixes and suffixes
- the interpretation of those letters which, in certain words, are provided with points
- the interpretation of the letters in a word according to their numerical value (see Gematria)
- the interpretation of a word by dividing it into two or more words (see Notarikon)
- the interpretation of a word according to its consonantal form or according to its vocalization
- the interpretation of a word by transposing its letters or by changing its vowels
- the logical deduction of a halakah from a Scriptural text or from another law
The rabbis of the Talmud considered themselves to be the receivers and transmitters of an Oral Torah as to the meaning of the scriptures. They considered this oral tradition to set forth the precise, original meanings of the words, revealed at the same time and by the same means as the original scriptures themselves. Interpretive methods listed above such as word play and letter counting were never used as logical proof of the meaning or teaching of a scripture. Instead they were considered to be an asmakhta, a validation of a meaning that was already set by tradition or a homiletic backing for rabbinic rulings.
Christian[edit]
Until the Enlightenment, biblical hermeneutics was usually seen as a form of special hermeneutics (like legal hermeneutics); the status of scripture was thought to necessitate a particular form of understanding and interpretation. Witcher 3 mods.settings file extension.
In the nineteenth century it became increasingly common to read scripture just like any other writing, although the different interpretations were often disputed. Friedrich Schleiermacher argued against a distinction between 'general' and 'special' hermeneutics, and for a general theory of hermeneutics applicable to all texts, including the Bible. Various methods of higher criticism sought to understand the Bible purely as a human, historical document.
The concept of hermeneutics has acquired at least two different but related meanings which are in use today. Firstly, in the older sense, biblical hermeneutics may be understood as the theological principles of exegesis which is often virtually synonymous with 'principles of biblical interpretation' or methodology of biblical exegesis. Secondly, the more recent development is to understand the term 'biblical hermeneutics' as the broader philosophy and linguistic underpinnings of interpretation. The question is posed: 'How is understanding possible?' The rationale of this approach is that, while Scripture is 'more than just an ordinary text,' it is certainly 'no less than an ordinary text.' Scripture is in the first analysis 'text' which human beings try to understand; in this sense, the principles of understanding any text apply to the Bible as well (regardless of whatever other additional, specifically theological principles are considered).
In this second sense, all aspects of philosophical and linguistic hermeneutics are considered to be applicable to the biblical texts, as well. There are obvious examples of this in the links between 20th-century philosophy and Christian theology. For example, Rudolf Bultmann's hermeneutical approach was strongly influenced by existentialism, and in particular by the philosophy of Martin Heidegger; and since the 1970s, the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer have had a wide-ranging influence on biblical hermeneutics as developed by a wide range of Christian theologians. The French-American philosopher René Girard follows a similar trail.[2]
Diverse interpretations[edit]
Biblical scholars have noted the diversity of interpretations by Protestants and to a lesser extent by Catholics. In his forward to R. C. Sproul’s Knowing Scripture, J. I. Packer observes that Protestant theologians are in conflict about biblical interpretation.[3] To illustrate the diversity of biblical interpretations, William Yarchin[4] pictures a shelf full of religious books saying different things, but all claiming to be faithful interpretations of the Bible.[5]Bernard Ramm observed that such diverse interpretations underlie the doctrinal variations in Christendom.[6] A mid-19th century book on biblical interpretation observed that even those who believe the Bible to be the word of God hold the most discordant views about fundamental doctrines.[7]
The Catholic Church asserts the capital importance of biblical interpretation and Catholic scholars recognize some diversity in the Bible. This allows for an openness of interpretation as long as it stays within the Catholic Church’s theological Tradition.[8] So it is that theological factors set the parameters for interpreting the Scripture that Catholics believe to be the word of God.[9] Such parameters disallow the widely differing interpretations that make it possible for Protestants to prove almost anything by the Bible.[10]
Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis[edit]
This form of theological hermeneutics in the mainstream Protestant tradition considers Christian Biblical hermeneutics in the tradition of explication of the text, or exegesis, to deal with various principles that can be applied to the study of Scripture. If the canon of Scripture is considered as an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound. Biblical hermeneutics differs from hermeneutics and within traditional Protestant theology, there are a variety of interpretive formulae. Such formulae are generally not mutually exclusive, and interpreters may adhere to several of these approaches at once. These formulae include:[11]
Theological Group of Principles:
- The Historical-grammatical principle based on historical, socio-political, geographical, cultural and linguistic / grammatical context
- Alternate, mutually-exclusive, models of history:
- The Dispensational model or The Chronometrical Principle: 'During different periods of time, God has chosen to deal in a particular way with man in respect to sin and man's responsibility.'
- The Covenantal model: 'We differentiate between the various contracts that God has made with his people; specifically their provisions, their parties and their purposes.'
- The New-Covenantal model: The Old Testament Laws have been fulfilled and abrogated or cancelled with Christ's death, and replaced with the Law of Christ of the New Covenant, although many of the Old Covenant laws are reinstituted under the New Covenant.
- The Ethnic Division Principle: 'The word of truth is rightly divided in relation to the three classes which it treats, i.e. Jews, Gentiles and the Church.'
- The Breach Principle: Interpretation of a certain verse or passage in Scripture is aided by a consideration of certain breaches, either breaches of promise or breaches of time.
- The Christo-Centric Principle: 'The mind of deity is eternally centered in Christ. All angelic thought and ministry are centered in Christ. All Satanic hatred and subtlety are centered at Christ. All human hopes are, and human occupations should be, centered in Christ. The whole material universe in creation is centered in Christ. The entire written word is centered in Christ.'
- The Moral Principle
- The Discriminational Principle: 'We should divide the word of truth so as to make a distinction where God makes a difference.'
- The Predictive Principle
- The Application Principle: 'An application of truth may be made only after the correct interpretation has been made'
- The Principle of Human Willingness in Illumination
- The Context Principle: 'God gives light upon a subject through either near or remote passages bearing upon the same subject.'
Sub-divided Context/Mention Principles:
- The First Mention Principle: 'God indicates in the first mention of a subject the truth with which that subject stands connected in the mind of God.'
- The Progressive Mention Principle: 'God makes the revelation of any given truth increasingly clear as the word proceeds to its consummation.'
- The Comparative Mention Principle
- The Full Mention Principle or The Complete Mention Principle: 'God declares his full mind upon any subject vital to our spiritual life.'
- The Agreement Principle: 'The truthfulness and faithfulness of God become the guarantee that he will not set forth any passage in his word that contradicts any other passage.'
- The Direct Statement Principle: 'God says what he means and means what he says.'
- The Gap Principle: 'God, in the Jewish Scriptures, ignores certain periods of time, leaping over them without comment.'
- The Threefold Principle: 'The word of God sets forth the truths of salvation in a three-fold way: past - justification; present - sanctification/transformation; future - glorification/consummation.'
- The Repetition Principle: 'God repeats some truth or subject already given, generally with the addition of details not before given.'
- The Synthetic Principle
- The Principle of Illustrative Mention
- The Double Reference Principle
Figures of Speech Group of Principles:
- The Numerical Principle
- The Symbolic Principle
- The Typical Principle: 'Certain people, events, objects and rituals found in the Old Testament may serve as object lessons and pictures by which God teaches us of his grace and saving power.'
- The Parabolic Principle
- The Allegorical Principle
Techniques[edit]
In the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics considers the original medium[12] as well as what language says, supposes, doesn't say, and implies. The process consists of several steps for best attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s). One such process is taught by Henry A Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981):
- Lexical-syntactical analysis: This step looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text.
- Historical/cultural analysis: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
- Contextual analysis: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
- Theological analysis: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn't make a theology. This is because Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poor interpretation.
- Special literary analysis: There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning.
Howard Hendricks, longtime professor of hermeneutics at Dallas Theological Seminary, set out the method of observing the text, interpreting the text, applying the text in his book, Living By the Book. Other major Christian teachers, such as Charles R. (Chuck) Swindoll, who wrote the foreword, Kay Arthur and David Jeremiah have based their hermeneutics on the principles Hendricks teaches.
In his book God Centered Biblical Interpretation (1999), Vern Poythress, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, presented a hermeneutical technique based on the pattern of 'speaker, discourse, and hearer'.[13] According to Poythress, the study of the Bible must acknowledge all three aspects: God as the speaker, the Bible as His speech, and the people to whom He speaks. Thus, context plays a primary role in Poythress's study of Biblical teachings. He lists three general concepts to understand about any passage of Scripture:
- Original time and context: This includes the personal perspective of the writer, the normative perspective of the text itself, and the situational perspective of the original audience.
- Transmission and its context: Understanding the transmission of Scripture includes contemplating the message being sent through the text, taking into account the concerns of individual writers/translators as well as its broader role in the unraveling narrative of history.
- Modern context: Poythress calls interpreters to understand Scripture as 'what God is saying now' to the individual as well as to the modern church.[14]
David L. Barr states there are three obstacles that stand in the way of correctly interpreting the biblical writings: We speak a different language, we live approximately two millennia later, and we bring different expectations to the text.[15] Additionally, Barr suggests that we approach the reading of the Bible with significantly different literary expectations than those in reading other forms of literature and writing.
Roman Catholic[edit]
The Catholic Encyclopedia lists a number of principles guiding Roman Catholic hermeneutics in the article on Exegesis (note: the Catholic Encyclopedia was written in 1917 and does not reflect the changes set forth by the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu published by Pius XII in 1943, which opened modern Catholic Biblical scholarship) :
- Historico-grammatical interpretation - The meaning of the literary expression of the Bible is best learned by a thorough knowledge of the languages in which the original text of Scripture was written, and by acquaintance with the Scriptural way of speaking, including the various customs, laws, habits and national prejudices which influenced the inspired writers as they composed their respective books. John Paul II said that: 'A second conclusion is that the very nature of biblical texts means that interpreting them will require continued use of the historical-critical method, at least in its principal procedures. The Bible, in effect, does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human history. In a way that differs from tenets of other religions [such as Islam, for instance], the message of the Bible is solidly grounded in history.[16]
- Catholic interpretation - Because the Catholic Church is, according to Catholics, the official custodian and interpreter of the Bible, Catholicism's teaching concerning the Sacred Scriptures and their genuine sense must be the supreme guide of the commentator. The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly.
- Reverence - Since the Bible is God's own book, its study must be begun and prosecuted with a spirit of reverence and prayer.
- Inerrancy - Since God is the principal Author of Sacred Scripture, it can be claimed to contain no error, no self-contradiction, nothing contrary to scientific or historical truth (when the original authors intended historical or scientific truth to be portrayed). Minor contradictions are due to copyist errors in the codex or the translation. Catholics believe the Scripture is God's message put in words by men, with the imperfections this very fact necessarily implies. Catholic hermeneutics strongly supports inerrancy when it comes to principles but not, for example, when dealing with Evangelists' orthographic mistakes. According to Pope John Paul II, 'Addressing men and women, from the beginnings of the Old Testament onward, God made use of all the possibilities of human language, while at the same time accepting that his word be subject to the constraints caused by the limitations of this language. Proper respect for inspired Scripture requires undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp of its meaning.[16]
- Patristics - The Holy Fathers are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith.
Pope Benedict XVI has indicated in Verbum Domini, the post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the Word of God, that 'Christianity..perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history'. He encourages a “faith-filled interpretation of Sacred Scripture”. He emphasizes that this manner of interpretation, “practiced from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition..recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition'. It 'seeks to discover the living meaning of the Sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres'. Verbum Domini #44.
Eastern Orthodox[edit]
- God is real and is incarnated in our Lord Jesus Christ. Everything pertaining to the Scriptures must be understood Christologically. Jesus Christ, the incarnate Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the center of all that we as Christians do, and being Himself the very Truth, He is the only gate through which we may enter into understanding of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments (though not all that is contained in the Old Testament is directly relevant for Christians). The Bible ultimately is about Christ and assists us in our union with Him.
- Only the pure in heart 'shall see God.' That is, our spiritual state has a direct bearing on our interpretation of the Scriptures. As St. Athanasius said, 'One cannot possibly understand the teaching of the saints unless one has a pure mind and is trying to imitate their life.' Because the Scripture is a book inspired by the Holy Spirit and given through holy men, one's own holiness is directly relevant to the ability to interpret the book correctly. Unlike any other book, the Bible's words are 'spirit and life,' and so we must live spiritually in order to drink from this spiritual well. Clearly, prayer and spiritual discipline are necessary in order to understand Scripture properly.
- Understanding of the Scripture comes with living its contents. As the quote from St. Athanasius illustrates, one must both have a pure mind and be trying to imitate the saints' lives in order to understand their teaching, a dual principle which applies most of all to the teaching of the saints in the Bible. This life is particularly expressed in terms of living out the commandments and attempting to imitate Christ's life of the Gospel.
- The primary end of Scriptural hermeneutics is that of the whole Christian life, theosis (deification/divinization). That is, our purpose in attempting to understand the Bible must not be merely for academic inquiry but rather must be in order to become fully divinized human beings, soaked with the life of God, participating in His divine energies, growing to the fullness of the stature of Christ. We interpret Scripture in order to become by grace what Christ is by nature, to 'become god.'
- Only within the community of the Church can the Bible be understood. It was written by the Church, in the Church and for the Church. Thus, it is a 'family document' which is the highest point of Holy Tradition, taken with faith alongside the writings of the Fathers, the Liturgy, the Icons, the Lives of the Saints, and so on.
- The Scripture is a witness to the truth, not an exhaustive tome on Christian living. Nowhere in the words of Scripture itself can we find the teaching that it is all-sufficient for Christian life. What we as Orthodox Christians do must always be consonant with the Scriptures, but explicit mention of a practice or teaching in the Scripture is not a requirement for its inclusion in the life of the Church. The Apostle Paul himself mentions the reality of unwritten sources of Church Tradition being equally in force for the believer in II Thessalonians 2:15, that these traditions to which we must 'stand fast and hold' may be 'by word or by our epistle.' Examples of practices not explicit in Scripture are making the Sign of the Cross, triple immersion for baptism, and having monasticism. St. Basil the Great even says that without maintaining the unwritten traditions of the Church, we 'mutilate the Gospel' (On the Spirit 66).
- We must respect the integrity of the canon of the Bible as given to us in the Church's Tradition. Searches for other texts written by apostles or prophets may be interesting and of scholarly merit, but they are not part of the hermeneutical project within the Church. Or conversely, attempts to debunk the authorship or authenticity of the books in the canon are also outside the Church's life. If we were to find a verifiable 'new' work by St. Paul or to discover that Moses did not in fact write Genesis, neither finding would have any bearing on the canon. It is what it is.
- We must use every resource at our disposal in interpreting the Scripture to bring ourselves and others to the knowledge of the truth. Certainly, there must be spiritual discernment in knowing how to use those resources, but at least theoretically, anything can be used to come to know the truth better as it is revealed in Holy Writ.
- We must have humility when approaching Scripture. Even some of the Church's greatest and most philosophically sophisticated saints stated that some passages were difficult for them. We must therefore be prepared to admit that our interpretations may be wrong, submitting them to the judgment of the Church.
- We may make use in a secondary fashion of the resources of academic scholarship, whether logic, archaeology, linguistics, et cetera. These resources can be helpful in terms of illuminating our understanding of Scripture, but they must always be given only secondary prominence in the project and always only in conjunction with all these other hermeneutic principles. Primary must always be our life in the Church, living, studying and knowing the Bible within that vivified and salvific Holy Tradition.[17]
Trajectory hermeneutics[edit]
Trajectory hermeneutics or redemptive-movement hermeneutics (RMH)[18][19][20] is a hermeneutical approach that seeks to locate varying 'voices' in the text and to view these voices as a progressive trajectory through history (or at least through the Biblical witness); often a trajectory that progresses through to the present day. The contemporary reader of Scripture is in some way envisaged by the Biblical text as standing in continuity with a developing theme therein. The reader, then, is left to discern this trajectory and appropriate it accordingly.
William J. Webb employed such a hermeneutic, in his Slaves, Women & Homosexuals. Webb shows how the moral commands of the Old and New Testament were a significant improvement over the surrounding cultural values and practices. Webb identified 18 different ways in which God dealt with his people moving against the current of popular cultural values. While for Webb the use of this hermeneutic moves to highlight the progressive liberation of women and slaves from oppressive male/bourgeois dominance, the prohibition of homosexual acts consistently moves in a more conservative manner than that of the surrounding Ancient Near East or Graeco-Roman societies. While Paul does not explicitly state that slavery should be abolished, the trajectory seen in Scripture is a progressive liberation of slaves. When this is extended to modern times, it implies that the Biblical witness supports the abolition of slavery. The progressive liberation of women from oppressive patriarchalism, traced from Genesis and Exodus through to Paul's own acknowledgement of women as 'co-workers' (Rom. 16:3), sets a precedent that when applied to modern times suggests that women ought to have the same rights and roles afforded to men. Historically, the Biblical witness has become progressively more stringent in its views of homosexual practice and the implications of this are not commented upon by Webb.
See also[edit]
- Formulary controversy concerning Jansenius' Augustinus in the 17th century
References[edit]
- ^Ferguson, Sinclair B; David F Wright; J. I. Packer (1988). New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. ISBN0-8308-1400-0.
- ^Perry, Simon (2005). Resurrecting Interpretation. Bristol Baptist College: University of Bristol.
- ^R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Rev. ed., InterVarsity Press, 2009), 10.
- ^http://www.apu.edu/honors/faculty/byarchin/
- ^William Yarchin, History of Biblical Interpretation: a Reader (Hendrickson, 2004), xi.
- ^Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation:A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd rev ed (Baker Academic, 1980), 3.
- ^The Interpretation of the Bible (Boston; Massachusetts Sabbath School Society, 1844), 15-16.
- ^Peter Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” (Gregorian Biblical BookShop, 2001), 23, 121, 254.
- ^David M. Williams, Receiving the Bible in Faith: Historical and Theological Exegesis (CUA Press, 2004), 6-7.
- ^Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (David C. Cook, 1991), 7.
- ^This list of 'principles' in conservative evangelical hermeneutics appears to derive from: Hartill, J E 1960. Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
- ^Perry, Peter. 'Biblical Performance Criticism'. www.biblicalperformancecriticism.org.
- ^Poythress, Vern S. (1999). God Centered Biblical Interpretation, p. 109. P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
- ^Ibid., p. 121 -122
- ^New Testament Story, Wadsworth Publishing, 1995, pg. 15
- ^ abPresented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (1993-04-23). 'The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church'. Retrieved 2007-05-21.
- ^Archpriest Michael Dahulich. 'OrthodoxWiki article on Hermeneutics'.
- ^Douglas Brown (July–September 2010). 'Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic'. Faith Baptist Theological Seminary. Archived from the original on 2010-12-31.
- ^W. W. Klein; C. L. Blomberg; R. L. Hubbard, Jr. (2004). Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. pp. 497–498. ISBN0785252258, ISBN978-0-7852-5225-2.
- ^H. A. Virkler; K. Gerber Ayayo (2007). Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group. pp. 202–204. ISBN978-0-8010-3138-0.
Further reading[edit]
- Brown, Raymond E., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds. (1990). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. ISBN0-13-614934-0. See especially: “Modern Criticism” and “Hermeneutics” (pp. 1113-1165).
- De La Torre, Miguel A., 'Reading the Bible from the Margins,' Orbis Books, 2002.* Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God's Word: A Hands on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001.
- Kaiser, Walter C., and Moises Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning.Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.
- Kim, Yung Suk.Biblical Interpretation: Theory, Process, and Criteria 2013 ISBN978-1-61097-646-6* Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Second edition. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
- Klein, William W; Blomberg, Craig L; Hubbard, Robert L (1993), Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Dallas, TX: Word Publishing.
- Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1970.
- Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach. Rev. ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Pub., 1997.
- Thistleton, Anthony. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992.
- Webb, William J. (2002). Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Authentic Media. ISBN1-84227-186-5.
External links[edit]
- Biblical Interpretation and Application Reading Room. Extensive online resources for contemporary biblical hermeneutics (Tyndale Seminary)
- Bibliology and Hermeneutics Course featuring audio and video resources from an Evangelical perspective
- Rev.Dr. Jose Puthenveed, 'Psybible Interpretation of The Bible Passages through tools of Psychology ' A Website Interpreting Biblical passages ( Sunday Homlies) using Psychology and Biblical scholarship, Website
- BiblicalStudies.org.uk Offers detailed bibliographies and numerous scholarly articles on various aspects of biblical hermeneutics.
- Hermeneutics - A Guide To Basic Bible Interpretation, By Darryl M. Erkel (Evangelical)
- Exegetical Hermeneutics Methods (Evangelical and Reformed)
- Inductive Hermeneutics Methods (Logic based)
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblical_hermeneutics&oldid=900920533'
Views 2,520
What Is Bible Hermeneutics
From Embeds
Basic Principles Of Biblical Hermeneutics
Number of Embeds
ActionsDownloads
Comments
Likes
Embeds 0
In other words, one must come to the well with an empty bucket – leaving pre-conceived biases or presuppositions aside.
In preaching, expository preaching like Pastor Tim does – going methodically through verses, pulling the meaning out and showing how it fits in the passage as a whole – that is exegesis in preaching. The other type would be “topical”, where many different parts of Scripture on a given topic – such as love; hospitality – might be pulled together to demonstrate a common theme running through Scripture.
Noah; Moses (New 10 Commandments movie); Mary, Mother of Jesus
This means that we start out by taking the words in their most normal meaning. If I say My house is red, you will understand what I mean. There would be no question about it. However, if I say Listen to this parable about the Homeowner, or used comparative words like the word like as in like a roaring lion, you would understand that my words might not be meant to be taken literally, but possibly figuratively. Grammatical - means we follow the grammatical rules of literature; Historical - means we seek to determine the historical background and context before rendering an interpretation.
The skeptic’s question “Do you take the Bible literally?” – How do we answer that? The Bible is all INSPIRED and INFALLIBLE, but we take the “Literal narratives” literally; the poetry as poetry; the symbolism as symbolism; the parables as parables; and so on.
Confusing MORAL LAW with ritual/purity Law given in Leviticus (ie claiming the verses stating homosexuality is an abomination are equal to the ones about shellfish and is mixing wool and linen) shows a misunderstanding of the Historical Principle, as well as Synthetic (Paul also wrote much about sexual sin; is in agreement with OT). Any First Century Jew or Jewish Christian would have understood the different Mosaic Laws’ purpose.
There are thousands of such nuggets in Scripture, where although the intended meaning is self-evident from the passage, an added insight into the historical significance sheds additional light. Note, for instance, the detail given to inheritance rights in the Pentateuch. This indicates how closely guarded property was in clan-based agrarian society, and how codified the law needed to be (especially where there was no male heir, as in the case of Zelophehad’s daughters in Numbers 27 and 36). Even without knowledge of ancient Near Eastern property laws, we may still appreciate the passage for the care and concern God evidences for His children and His desire for justice in all personal matters. At the same time, considering that the Bible covers 4,000 years of history and mentions many cultures, learning to apply the Historical Principle will help us gain additional understanding of the text.
“HELPMEET” is NOT a word!! It was a noun (‘help’) and adjective (‘meet’ = ‘suitable’ in Middle English) that KJV people made into a word
Jehovah Witnesses have changed entire doctrines/removed the Deity of Christ by playing fast and loose with a few words in Scripture!!
Blueletterbible.com and Strong’s Concordance – give example of “agapeo/phileo” in John 21
Most of us would grasp by what we call ‘common sense’ that Mark 16:18 is not encouraging us to go out and pick up deadly snakes or drink strychnine: “they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” First, by applying the Literal Principal, we can take the Lord’s statement at face value. It does not appear metaphorical or a case of hyperbole from context.
Next, the Historical Principal doesn’t lend us any new information – poison in the first century was still deadly; vipers still bit people and they died. Also, the same principle must be applied evenly throughout the whole passage – which also talks about laying hands on the sick for their recovery. While we are certainly to pray for the sick, Christians still sicken and die.
Grammatically, the Lord is speaking futuristically – He is prophecying that certain miraculous signs (which are for the benefit of unbelievers, 1 Cor. 14:22); would follow believers in the Early Church. Now we come to the Synthetic Principle – is there any other passage in Scripture that would seem to advocate picking up snakes or drinking poison? No. The verse stands as a literal and true statement, (we know of one instance, from Acts 28:5, where Paul was spared by God when a viper attached itself to his hand), but nowhere does the Bible indicate that this is normative in the lives of all believers. There is no harmony with other passages; no new doctrine can be formed or inferred from Scripture about the Christian’s immunity to poisonous snakes.
Where the Bible seems to have contradictions, it is because either we are interpreting the passage incorrectly, or we are not looking at it in context. A general rule for understanding the context of a given reference is to look at the verses immediately preceding and following it. Usually, cross-references are given in the margins of Bibles, which may refer the reader either to individual words or to similar teachings and statements elsewhere in the Bible.
One “contradiction” to which many skeptics point in an attempt to discredit the Bible is the apparent dichotomy between Jesus’ teaching to “Love thy neighbor as thyself”, given in all three Synoptic Gospels, and the Levitical penal code that demanded “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21:24; Lev. 24:20). The claim is that Christ represented a more ‘evolved’, kinder, gentler religion than the so-called “God of the Old Testament”. In reality, this is a false dichotomy. First, we know that the Triune God is immutable (unchanging) and He describes Himself as all-loving, compassionate, forgiving and gracious throughout the Old Testament. Second, Christ was actually quoting Leviticus 19:18 when He admonished His followers to love their neighbors as themselves. This was the entire spirit of the law from God’s Sinai covenant with the Israelites. Third, the “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” expression was a measure to prevent excesses in retributive justice. The context was judicial – penalty was to be appropriate to the nature of the crime; it was never intended as a rationale for personal vengeance. Studying out difficult passages keeping the Synthetic Principle in mind will help us see how they complement each other, even if at first glance they seem at odds.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics
Exegesis, or critical interpretation, and hermeneutics, or the science of interpretive principles, of the Bible have been used by both Jews and Christians throughout their histories for various purposes. The most common purpose has been discovering the truths and values of the Old and New Testaments by means of various techniques and principles, though very often, owing to the exigencies of certain historical conditions, polemical or apologetical situations anticipate the truth or value to be discovered and thus dictate the type of exegesis or hermeneutic to be used. The primary goal, however, is to arrive at biblical truths and values by an unbiassed use of exegesis and hermeneutics.
Nature and significance
Biblical exegesis is the actual interpretation of the sacred book, the bringing out of its meaning; hermeneutics is the study and establishment of the principles by which it is to be interpreted. Where the biblical writings are interpreted on a historical perspective, just as with philological and other ancient documents, there is little call for a special discipline of biblical hermeneutics. But it has been widely held that the factors of divine revelation and inspiration in the Bible—which, according to Jewish and Christian belief, set it apart from other literature—impose their appropriate hermeneutical principles, although there has been divergence of opinion on what these principles are. Again, because of the place that the biblical writings have occupied in synagogue and church, their exploitation for apologetical or polemical ends, their employment as a source for dogma or as a means of grace, fostering individual and community devotion, and the use of certain parts (especially the psalms) in the congregational liturgy, the science of hermeneutics has been studiously cultivated as a theological discipline. To treat the Bible like any other book (even in order to discover that it is not like any other book) has been condemned by believers as an unworthy, not to say impious, attitude.
At times the languages in which the biblical texts were originally composed have for that reason been treated as sacred languages. Hebrew may be to the philologist a Canaanite dialect, not substantially different from Phoenician, or Moabite, or other Semitic languages, but for some people even today this language is invested with an aura of sacredness. As for the language of the New Testament, in the days before its place within the general development of Hellenistic Greek was properly appreciated, it could be called a “language of the Holy Ghost,” as it was by the German Lutheran theologian Richard Rothe (1799–1867). And even scholars who know very well the true character of the biblical languages are tempted at times to make the Old and New Testament vocabularies, down to the very prepositions, bear a greater weight of theological significance than sound linguistic practice permits. Where in other Greek literature the context would be allowed to determine the precise force of this or that synonym, there is a tendency to approach the New Testament with definitions ready made and to impose them on the text: to give one example, of two common Greek words meaning “new,” it is sometimes laid down in advance that kainos denotes new in character and neos new in time (“young”). Often such distinctions are valid, but their validity must be established by the context; where the context discourages such precise differentiations, they must not be forced upon it.
Again, it is a truism in linguistic study that the meaning of a word depends on its usage, not on its derivation. It may be of interest to know that the Hebrew word for “burnt offering” (ʿola) etymologically means “ascending” (cf. the verb ʿala, “ascend”), and to trace the stages by which it attained its biblical meaning, but this knowledge is almost wholly irrelevant to the understanding of the word in the Old Testament ritual vocabulary, and any attempt to link it, say, with the ascension of Jesus in the New Testament, as has been done, can lead only to confusion.
Similarly there has been a tendency to place the history contained in the biblical writings on a different level from “ordinary” history. Here the increasing knowledge of the historical setting of the biblical narrative, especially in the Old Testament, has helped to remove the impression that the persons and peoples portrayed in this narrative are not quite “real”; it has integrated them with contemporary life and promoted a better understanding of what they had in common with their neighbours and what their distinctive qualities were.
Critical methods
A prerequisite for the exegetical study of the biblical writings, and even for the establishment of hermeneutical principles, is their critical examination. Most forms of biblical criticism are relevant to many other bodies of literature.
Textual criticism
Textual criticism is concerned with the basic task of establishing, as far as possible, the original text of the documents on the basis of the available materials. For the Old Testament, until 1947, these materials consisted principally of: (1) Hebrew manuscripts dated from the 9th century ad onward, the Masoretic text, the traditional Jewish text with its vocalization and punctuation marks as recorded by the editors called Masoretes (Hebrew masora, “tradition”) from the 6th century to the end of the 10th; (2) Hebrew manuscripts of medieval date preserving the Samaritan edition of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible); (3) Greek manuscripts, mainly from the 3rd and 4th centuries ad onward, preserving the text of the pre-Christian Greek version of the Hebrew Bible together with most of the apocryphal books (the Septuagint); and (4) manuscripts of the Syriac (Peshitta) and Latin (Vulgate) versions, both of which were based directly on the Hebrew. Since 1947 the discovery of Hebrew biblical texts at Qumrān (then Jordan) and other places west of the Dead Sea has made it possible to trace the history of the Hebrew Bible back to the 2nd century bc and to recognize, among the manuscripts circulating in the closing generations of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (c. 450 bc–c.ad 135), at least three types of Hebrew text: (1) the ancestor of the Masoretic text, (2) the Hebrew basis of the Septuagint version, and (3) a popular text of the Pentateuch akin to the Samaritan edition. A comparative examination of these three indicates that the ancestor of the Masoretic text is in the main the most reliable; the translators of the Revised Standard Version (1952) and the New English Bible (1970) have continued to use the Masoretic text as their Old Testament basis.
For the New Testament the chief text-critical materials are (1) manuscripts of the Greek text, from the 2nd to the 15th century, of which some 5,000 are known, exhibiting the New Testament text in whole or in part; (2) ancient versions in Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, and other languages; and (3) citations in early Christian writers. A comparative study of this material enables scholars to get behind the Byzantine type of text (the type that first diffused from Constantinople from the 4th century onward, gained currency throughout Greek-speaking Christendom, and formed the basis of the earliest printed editions of the Greek Testament) to a variety of types current in various localities in the generations immediately preceding; but the more recent discovery of manuscripts (mainly on papyrus) of the 3rd and even 2nd centuries, which cannot be neatly assigned to one or another of these types, makes the earlier history of the text more problematic, and the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible are both based on an eclectic text (in which, where the witnesses show variant readings, the reading preferred is that which best suits the context and the author’s known style).
Philological criticism
Philological criticism consists mainly in the study of the biblical languages in their widest scope so that the vocabulary, grammar, and style of the biblical writings can be understood as accurately as possible with the aid not only of other biblical writings but of other writings in the same or cognate languages. New Testament Greek, for example, is a representative of Hellenistic Greek written in the 1st century ad, ranging from the literary Hellenistic of Hebrews, 1 Peter, and portions of Luke–Acts to the colloquial or vernacularidiom of some other books (e.g., the conversations in the Gospels). Some Aramaic influences have been discerned in parts of the New Testament that have a Palestinian setting, but not to a point where scholars are obliged to conclude that some books, or parts of books, were originally composed in Aramaic. Moreover, the Septuagint version exercised on some New Testament writers the kind of influence that the King James Version has exercised on many English writers, especially in the provision of a theological vocabulary in areas such as law, ethics, atonement, and sacrifice. The study of Old Testament Hebrew has been enriched by the study of other Semitic languages—Akkadian and Ugaritic among the ancient languages, and Arabic, which preserves many archaic features. Such comparative study has led to the suggestion of new meanings for a considerable number of biblical Hebrew words—a tendency that is amply illustrated by the New English Bible—but this department of philological criticism requires much more carefully defined guiding lines than have hitherto been laid down.
Literary criticism
Literary criticism endeavours to establish the literary genres (types or categories) of the various biblical documents and to reach conclusions about their structure, date, and authorship. These conclusions are based as far as possible on internal evidence, but external evidence is also very helpful, especially where date is concerned. If the document under consideration is unmistakably quoted in another composition, for example, that quotation forms a terminus ante quem (later limiting point in time) for dating purposes. If, on the other hand, the document is clearly dependent on another document that can be dated on independent grounds, the date of the earlier document provides a terminus post quem (earlier limiting point in time).
Proven dependence on such an earlier document may also throw light on the structure of the work being studied. But much of the evidence for the history of its structure is internal. The evaluation of such evidence is the province of what used to be called the higher criticism, a term first employed with a biblical reference by the German biblical scholar and orientalist Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827):
I have been obliged to bestow the greatest amount of labour on a hitherto entirely unworked field, the investigation of the inner constitution of the separate books of the Old Testament by the aid of the higher criticism (a new name to no humanist).
Eichhorn paid special attention to the Pentateuch; his work marks an important step forward in Pentateuchal criticism. The chronological arrangement of the successive law codes contained in the Pentateuch, or of the successive editions of one fundamental law code, has been related to the history of Israelite culture and religion recorded in the other Old Testament books—histories, prophecies, and psalms—with the mounting aid supplied by contemporary non-Israelite documents. The development of some Old Testament books is indicated expressly in their contents: one can note the composition of the first and second editions of the Book of Jeremiah in Jeremiah 36:4, 32; and scholars can reach some conclusions about later editions by a comparison of the longer edition in the Masoretic text with the shorter edition in the Septuagint (now also attested in a fragmentary Hebrew text from Qumrān). In the absence of such explicit evidence, conclusions about the structure of other prophetic books, such as Isaiah and Ezekiel, must be more tentative.
In the New Testament, literary criticism has centred principally on the Gospels. In the Synoptic Gospels (that is, those having a common source—i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke) indicators as to source and composition are provided by the presence of so much material common to two or to all three of them. The majority opinion since the mid-19th century has been that Mark served as a source for Matthew and Luke and that the two latter had a further common source, generally labelled Q (for Quelle, the German term for “source”), comprising mainly sayings of Jesus. Aspects of the Gospel problem that literary criticism leaves unsolved are more likely to be illuminated by other critical approaches. The Fourth Gospel (John), having much less in common with the Synoptic Gospels than the latter three have among themselves, presents an independent line of transmission, and a comparative study of those areas where the Johannine and Synoptic traditions touch each other yields valuable conclusions for the beginnings of the gospel story.
Frederick Fyvie BruceIn the second half of the 20th century, some biblical scholars began applying the critical methods developed in secular literary criticism to the study of the Old and New Testaments. During the 1960s New Criticism, an approach that views literary texts as coherent units of meaning and focuses on technique and form, began to attract scholars who were interested in preserving a sense of the integrity of biblical texts in the face of archaeological research that raised questions of historical authorship. Other scholars, however, have insisted that New Criticism favours certain notions of what constitutes a scripture—e.g., that it is the finished and unified product of a divinely inspired author, prophet, scribe, or scribal community—and emphasizes texts to the neglect of historical context. Some detractors of New Criticism have adopted a contrasting approach, known as New Historicism, which treats texts as historical artifacts that emerge among particular social, intellectual, and economic circumstances. Since the late 20th century, similar perspectives have drawn upon postmodern theoretical movements—e.g., feminism, deconstruction, and postcolonial studies. What New Historicism and related movements have in common is a tendency to emphasize the “voices”—the perspectives and existential concerns—of people or groups who were marginalized or unrepresented within biblical narratives or discriminated against because of their gender, ethnicity, or social class. Some scholars within or influenced by these movements also have emphasized the widely discussed intertextuality of the Bible—the ways in which different biblical texts are related and even refer to each other—and explored the ways in which popular ostensibly secular authors and artists have drawn inspiration or source material from biblical texts—e.g., the English poet John Milton’s use of Genesis in Paradise Lost (1667) and the American novelist William Faulkner’s use of Psalms in The Wild Palms (1939).
The Editors of Encyclopaedia BritannicaTradition criticism
Tradition criticism takes up where literary criticism leaves off; it goes behind the written sources to trace the development of oral tradition, where there is reason to believe that this preceded the earliest documentary stages, and attempts to trace the development of the tradition, phase by phase, from its primary life setting to its literary presentation. The development of the tradition might cover a lengthy period, as in the Old Testament narratives of the patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—and the judges, such as Deborah and Samuel, many of which were originally attached to particular sanctuaries. The recognition of the life setting of each successive phase is necessary to the interpretation of the material received and delivered by one generation after another.
Download game yugioh pc free offline. In the New Testament too, special attention has been paid to the oral stage of the Gospel tradition, though here the preliterary period is measured in decades, not (as in the Old Testament) in generations and centuries. Not only the record of the ministry of Jesus but the development of Christian theology in the short preliterary stage has formed the subject matter of this study.
Form criticism
Form criticism has become one of the most valuable tools for the reconstruction of the preliterary tradition. This discipline classifies the literary material according to the principal “forms”—such as legal, poetic, and other forms—represented in its contents, and examines these in order to discover how they were handed down and what their successive life settings were until they assumed their present shape and position. In their various ways laws, narratives, psalms, and prophecies are amenable to this approach. By this means some scholars have undertaken to recover the ipsissima verba (“very own words”) of Jesus by removing the accretions attached to them in the course of transmission. The exegetical task assumes a threefold shape as scholars work back from (1) interpretation of the present Gospels through (2) interpretation of the tradition lying behind them to (3) reconstruction of the proclamation of Jesus.
Scholars are not left completely to speculation as they attempt to reconstruct the stages by which the Gospel tradition attained its final form: here and there in the New Testament letters, and in some of the speeches included in Acts (which convey the general sense of what was said and should not be regarded as the author’s free creations), there are fragments and outlines of the story of Jesus and of his teaching. Sometimes the characteristic terminology of tradition (“I received . . . I delivered”) is used when such fragments are introduced, a decade or so before the composition of the earliest Gospel (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3).
Other types of exegetical critical techniques
Redaction criticism
Redaction criticism concentrates on the end product, studying the way in which the final authors or editors used the traditional material that they received and the special purpose that each had in view in incorporating this material into his literary composition. It has led of late to important conclusions about the respective outlooks and aims of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Historical criticism
Historical criticism places the documents in their historical setting and promotes their interpretation in the light of their contemporary environment. This is necessary for their understanding, whether they are historical in character or belong to another literary genre. If they are historical in character, it is important to establish how faithfully they reflect their dramatic date—the date of the events they record (as distinct from the date of final composition). This test has been applied with singularly positive results to Luke–Acts, especially in relation to Roman law and institutions; and in general the biblical outline of events from the middle Bronze Age (c. 21st–c. mid-16th century bc) to the 1st century ad fits remarkably well into its Near Eastern context as recovered by archaeological research.
“History of religions” criticism
Principles Of Bible Interpretation Hermeneutics
“History of religions” criticism, to use an ungainly expression, relates Old and New Testament religion to the religious situation of the contemporary world of the writings and tries to explain biblical religion as far as possible in terms of current religious attitudes and practices. This is helpful to a point, insofar as it throws into relief those features of Hebrew and Christian faith that are distinctive; it is carried to excess when it attempts to deprive those features of their unique qualities and to account completely for them in religious–historical terms. When the cult of Israel was practically indistinguishable from that of the Canaanites, the protests of the 8th-century-bc Hebrew prophets Amos or Hosea stand out over against popular Yahwehworship (Hebrew) and Baal worship (Canaanite) alike. Another attempt has been made by historians of religion to re-create for the 1st century ad a pre-Christian Gnostic myth—referring to an esoteric dualism in which matter is viewed as evil and spirit good—of the primal or heavenly man who comes from the realm of light to liberate particles of a heavenly essence that are imprisoned on Earth in material bodies and to impart the true knowledge. By men’s acceptance of this secret salvatory knowledge (gnosis), the heavenly essence within man is released from its thraldom and reascends to its native abode. Fragments of this myth have been recognized in several books of the New Testament. But the attempt has not been successful: according to many recent (latter half of the 20th century) New Testament scholars and historians of the early church, it is probable that the concepts of primal man and redeemer-revealer were not brought together in Gnosticismexcept under the influence of the Christian apostolic teaching, in which Jesus fills the role of Son of man (or Second Adam) together with that of Saviour and Revealer.
On the other hand, the Iranian religious influence, primarily that of Zoroastrianism, on the angelology and eschatology (concepts of the last times) of Judaism in the last two centuries bc is unmistakable, especially among the Pharisees (a liberal Jewish sect emphasizing piety) and the Qumrān community (presumably the Essenes) near the Dead Sea. In the latter, indeed, Zoroastrian dualism finds clear expression, such as in the concept of a war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness, although it is subordinated to the sovereignty of the one God of Israel.
The value of these critical methods of Bible study lies in their enabling the reader to interpret the writings as accurately as possible. By their aid he can better ascertain what the writers meant by the language that they used at the time they wrote and how their first readers would have understood their language. If the understanding of readers today is to have any validity, it must bear a close relationship to what the original readers were intended to understand.
For additional information about the various forms of biblical criticism, see above: Old Testament canon, texts, and versions; and New Testament canon, texts, and versions.
Each of these literary genres requires addition exegetical consideration. Yet all of the steps do not apply equally to all New Testament passages. Some passages, for example, present no major textual problems; others are seriously problematic.6 Also to be considered along this is the nature of the Sentence if it is simple with one main clause, compound with two main coordinate clauses or complex with main clause with subordinates5 ESTABLISH THE TEXT.I n establishing the text, the interpreter must ensure that the text is found in the best manuscripts not just any script like the apocryphal and cannot be traced back to an unintentional alteration by the copyist.Fee sees this as the first concern of the interpreter of any ancient text, it borders with words and their orders as used by the author 76 ANALYZE THE GRAMMAR.This has to do with knowing the form and the force of the grammar used in the passage. This also includes investigating into the verbs, nouns and the force of prepositions and conjunctions used.Analyzing the grammar also includes the ability of the interpreter to critically look into do usage of words to ascertain any figurative trace in the word or expressions. This is because the Bible was originally written in three languages: Hebrew,