• Home
  • More
  • Mary's Diary
  • Store
  • Newsletter
d and J Ministries

How do we know how to interpret scripture?

9/23/2013

8 Comments

 
I tweeted what I thought was a brilliantly funny play on words (ok, so mildly amusing might have been closer...) It asked if a watertight theological argument could be described as 'hermeneutically sealed'. Brian Jose asked the important question: 
What hermeneutic do we use to ensure we have the right hermeneutic?'
or as I've rephrased in the title of this post, 'how do we know how to interpret scripture?  Interestingly, I'd just had the same discussion with Alan Jones so thought it might be helpful to write some thoughts to stimulate discussion...

All Scripture is ... profitable for...

2 Tim. 3:16 tells us that all scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. That seems a first key - if you know what something is for, it makes it much easier to interpret. If you have a Haynes manual for a Ford Focus you know what it's useful for. You're not going to use it for cooking recipes. You're probably not even going to use it to fix your Dacia Logan even though it is also arguably a car. And knowing what it is useful for saves a whole lot of potential confusion as to interpretation. You're not going to read a part of the manual and meditate on the existential meaning of the word 'axle'. You're not going research the original language or cultural importance of the word 'bonnet' as opposed to 'hood'. 

All good then, we know what scripture is profitable for. Firstly, it's for teaching. But teaching about what? Physics? Cosmology? History? Hygiene? Religious ritual? Because for sure it seems to refer to all of these and more... Well, no. None of the above. That's clear because it goes on to say what else it is good for: Reproof (pointing out when we made a wrong choice), Correction (showing us the way to back to the right route when we made a wrong choice) and training in righteousness (how to make right choices).

In short, scripture is useful when we use it to show us the way, to train us in how to identify and courageously choose the right way and for pointing out when we did neither. Which probably means it's not very useful for science, or history or archaeology or fixing the Dacia Logan.

All Scripture is Inspired....

But the key to interpretation probably lies in how we understand 'inspiration' . If we think it means that God wrote the words by proxy, by putting the precise words he wanted into the mind of the authors, then interpretation will be a matter of understanding what the words meant in the original language and culture. Such tools as word counting, cross referencing by word or phrase, analysis of linguistics and dissection of text will be important to arrive at a coherent understanding of the whole message. In such a view of inspiration, exactness, precision and a scientific, forensic approach would be appropriate; certainty should be achievable.

If we don't think that's what inspired means, then the tools and framework will be different. What if God didn't control the authors in quite that precise way? What if He used fallible people, themselves on a journey towards wholeness and understanding? What if He inspired them to write in the sense that he gave them the encouragement, the sense of urgency, the subject matter in general? But yet gave them the freedom to express the thoughts and words out of their own knowledge of God, and through their own personality? What might be an appropriate means of interpretation then? Well, along with language and culture, now we need to know what biases the individuals might have brought to their writing. We need a mechanism for sorting out what is true from God's perspective as opposed to what the writer thought was true from His growing but flawed understanding.

Well, which is it? The first is very attractive. It takes account of God's omnipotence; for sure he could have done it that way, he is powerful enough! It's also very attractive in that it should lead to certainty. Once the words and their meaning have been agreed, the way should be unambiguous. It appeals too to the 'modern' worldview which many of us oldies still have an affinity for; scientific, logical, certainty.

However, that doesn't seem to be the way the Bible was written.... detailed analysis supports what most people sense when they read it. The author's personalities shine through. There are human differences of perspective as well as differences of fact. It sounds for all the world like Godly people (for the most part) got inspired and wrote down their best recollection or their best research, or their best understanding of what was true. But like the rest of us, they were on a journey, had a heap of baggage and tradition, were somewhat trapped by their own pain / worldview and prone to mis-remembering. 

Of course God could have overwritten those bits and for sure he has guided the collection of the writings we have to be the best, least problematic set possible. But to have taken control of people in order to write specific words, or even to so inspire them that they had in effect no choice as to what to write would be to contradict the clear things that the Bible says about Him! It says He is love and love it declares 'does not insist on its own way' (1 Cor 13). Indeed the Bible says that control is like witchcraft. It calls us to be self-controlled, but never to control others. 

The evidence, I suggest is that the Bible is not a hand-written by God document, but rather a God inspired collection of fallible documents written by fallible people. Woah! Where does that leave us then? Anyone can make it say what they want, just leave out the bits they don't like, major on the bits that suit them... that's crazy! Well, sorry to say, but isn't that what happens anyway? Isn't that why we have 66 books including two distinct histories and three synoptic gospels plus a fourth to keep us in line with what they mean? Isn't that why we have The Holy Spirit to 'guide us into all truth' rather than a library of commentaries?  And ultimately, isn't that why we have Jesus?

When the disciples were trying to work out what was true - their traditional 'Biblical' understanding or the radical new interpretation Jesus was living, they asked Him: "Show us the Father". And here in my view is the key. He said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. In other words, our view of what God is like is embodied, not in a series of texts, but in the person that they point to. The answer to Brian's erudite question I think is this. We need a Christo-centric hermeneutic. A Christ centred interpretation of scripture. We can't truly understand it without understanding the person of Jesus. If the Bible is a jigsaw puzzle of thousands of pieces then we need a good picture on the box to tell us how to put it together. The picture is Jesus.

Ok, I know, I can hear the avalanche of 'woolly liberal' epithets headed my way... please do comment, but keep it clean, yeah? Now, where's that Dacia Logan manual, I need to understand Revelation 2...
See Kingdom Wiki Article
8 Comments
Matt
9/23/2013 05:27:02 am

As Brian Johnson says: Jesus Christ is perfect theology.

Reply
Avril Johnson
9/23/2013 10:17:19 am

Interestingly, David, this was exactly what I was trying to say this morning.

In Victorian times, the Bible was used not only for 'religious instruction etc etc but also for learning to read and write. It has many other uses today, which I may share with you at a future date.

To address some of the points in your blog: in arriving at the most accurate meaning of the scriptures, it seems that it must be important to turn to the original manuscripts and language.

This begs a question: 'From which translation should we read?'
So, now go from our allegedly, most accurate to the complete opposite end of the spectrum, we have 'The Message' which has been described to me as a reader-friendly' version but how much meaning does it compromise in translation, how 'God-friendly' is it when we compare it to some, so-called other 'more reliable' translations to which it bears little or no resemblance? Therefore which translation would we dare to call our 'God-Inspired' translation?

The Amplified Bible is an interesting example, since we, ourselves, can consider ourselves to be 'The Inspired Authors'. Every few words we are invited to become co-authors and select the next word from a number of (supposedly????) synonyms to make our own text or translation. As you try to make the most appropriate choice out of 3 to 4 tenously-linked synonyms, you can almost hear the 'ding' or 'ugh, ugh' as you make the right or wrong selection for your quiz answer. Having done this two or three times in the sentence the meaning is totally lost but hey (!) you are writing your own Bible. One wonders, how many different translations could be written by a group of 30 students using this 'multiple choice' as their foundation? (I can almost see David completing the mathematics, or creating a formula, before I finish writing this - lol) Where could this lead if the same practice were perpetuated by future generations?

Do varied translations of the Bible add to or diminish the authenticity of the Bible?. Since many of the books of the Bible were written years after Jesus' death and by people who had not known him, in some cases, then how can we be sure, that, even given that the scriptures were inspired by God, that authorial licence is not embodied. Could it be seen that the different characters, interests and roles of the authors make it a more-rounded, interesting and meaningful account? Alternatively, is it suggested that the Bible was dictated by God?

Does Jesus' statement, 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father,' answer our question? Taken that there may be inaccuracies in the original accounts, and furthermore, in translation, then did Jesus, indeed actually make this statement, something similar or not make it at all and, moreover, what did he mean by it? Can we rely on the range of scriptures or purely those relating to Jesus' life, primarily the Gospels, or do we have to seek Jesus in prayer on everything we read regarding its authenticity?

I have almost talked myself into considering, 'Is there any value in reading the Bible?' I am not sure if it is 'fit for purpose'. Firstly, have I got the right manual? Is it of God or a bunch of imaginative writers, rather like myself, who have got 'carried away with the moment'. After all, all 4 gospels differ, depending on the author's personal interest (eg Luke covers more of Jesus' healing ministry), different gospels start at different points in Jesus' life or focus on different parts are to different writers, seen as of primary importance so the content is controversial. Did God enlighten one writer to write about his interest and another to select which episodes of the stories he liked, whilst telling a third scribe what should be included?

Secondly, we already have a confusing account/s to deal with but then comes the problematic area of the numerous translations, already discussed. Islam avoids these issues in the belief that the Qu'ran was given to Muhammed, directly by God, and it is not permitted to be translated.

Thirdly, if we are to 'look to Jesus to see the Father' then what are we implying here? To look to Jesus' example in the Bible, the account of which may be flawed in itself, or to seek Jesus' (as in prayer), in which case the Bible just becomes another interesting book, as the many that we find in our Christian bookshops (I am promoting the latter, here, which are fighting to compete in the age of Amazon and downloads) which are no more than an author's viewpoint but based on truth.

I would like to believe that The Bible is more than just that.

Reply
Avril Johnson
9/23/2013 10:20:13 am

Apologies if this is difficult to follow or full of mistakes. I nearly always seem to read these blogs in the early hours of the morning and it is not the best time, for me, to write.

Reply
David
9/23/2013 04:32:54 pm

Some quick thoughts - do look at the Kingdom Wiki article which has a much fuller description of 'The Making of the Bible'...

Translations: Pretty much all modern translations use the same source documents as their starting point. These are fragments or entire copies in the original language. Research and discovery (Dead Sea Scrolls etc) mean we have extremely reliable texts to start from - there is very little debate now about what the original language text of the various books said. Of course that then needs translating and different versions of the Bible have different approaches to this. The NIV for example is a 'dynamic equivalent' - the intent is to inspire in the current reader, the thoughts and feelings the original writer had. Of course, this requires a level of interpretation on behalf of the translator. The ASV / RSV attempt simply to translate as accurately as possible the original language into English or whatever. The NLT attempts both, but helpfully (in my opinion) makes a note when the translation is not a direct word for word equivalent to the original. The Message and the Amplified Bibles aren't translations in this sense, they are works derived from translations with the aim of giving a broader understanding of the biblical text.

Reliability: Whilst I don't hold to the view that God directly dictated or controlled the writers, I'm by no means saying that he was uninvolved.. He inspired the writers as to subject and content, he revealed to them truths and perspectives that were going to be crucial to all readers. He worked through a range of fallible people (rather than one or two) to ensure the right documents were formed into the Bible and He has worked and inspired translators and scholars ever since to ensure we have the best text possible. More than that, He made sure within the Bible that there are enough accounts of events and issues to ensure they self-correct when read as a whole. And finally, He gives us His Holy Spirit to lead us into the truth that he is wanting to share with any individual at any given time through the Scripture.

Jesus: Because Jesus is central to our understanding of God and therefore the Bible, God has inspired the writing, collection and protection of three separate accounts of the key events of His life and ministry. Then He had John, His closest companion, spend years reflecting on what it all meant so he could write a commentary on the life of Jesus so that we had a framework in which to understand the other Gospels.

So, use different versions for broad reading and perspective - use the more literal translations for detailed understanding. Read it all; the Gospels provide the framework for everything else. It is reliable, it is God breathed. Key question of course is what we do with the truth it reveals

Reply
Avril Johnson
9/23/2013 07:01:02 pm

I am aware of how the Bible was written; sorry, if I do not reflect that in my writing. I understand about the origin and language:

'it seems that it must be important to turn to the original manuscripts and language.'

Maybe this is not wholly clear but, perhaps incorrectly, is making the assumption that it is necessary to go into further detail. However, I must admit, that thinking about, and writing, a response has made me question some of my original beliefs.

Reliability: So where is the evidence that God inspired this collection of 'fallible people' - (did you mean 'fallible') to write the books of the Bible or is this based on Faith rather than Truth?

Jesus: I understand the relationship between John and Jesus and how this might influence the writing of the other Gospels (all 4 of which I have read and would hope so by now!) but isn't this an argument that would support that they are less God-inspired than we would hope, but rather a somewhat plagerised account? As with the Old Testament, is it not more important to be aware of who wrote the particular book, when, where and why? This enables us to develop an intelligent understanding about differences together with any similarities. What a shame, in a way, that we do not have the same assurances with the Bible, that Muslims hold dear with the Qu'ran?

I am somewhat playing Devil's Advocate (maybe an unfortunate pun) in writing this but, is it not this particular, literary style that lends itself to an interesting discussion?

Avril Johnson
9/23/2013 07:01:31 pm

I am aware of how the Bible was written; sorry, if I do not reflect that in my writing. I understand about the origin and language:

'it seems that it must be important to turn to the original manuscripts and language.'

Maybe this is not wholly clear but, perhaps incorrectly, is making the assumption that it is necessary to go into further detail. However, I must admit, that thinking about, and writing, a response has made me question some of my original beliefs.

Reliability: So where is the evidence that God inspired this collection of 'fallible people' - (did you mean 'fallible') to write the books of the Bible or is this based on Faith rather than Truth?

Jesus: I understand the relationship between John and Jesus and how this might influence the writing of the other Gospels (all 4 of which I have read and would hope so by now!) but isn't this an argument that would support that they are less God-inspired than we would hope, but rather a somewhat plagerised account? As with the Old Testament, is it not more important to be aware of who wrote the particular book, when, where and why? This enables us to develop an intelligent understanding about differences together with any similarities. What a shame, in a way, that we do not have the same assurances with the Bible, that Muslims hold dear with the Qu'ran?

I am somewhat playing Devil's Advocate (maybe an unfortunate pun) in writing this but, is it not this particular, literary style that lends itself to an interesting discussion?

Avril Johnson
9/23/2013 07:03:43 pm

Not again! I have just written a reply to lose the entirety of it!

Reply
Dana Allen link
9/23/2013 09:23:51 pm

David, let's get this writing on film?????

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    David often gets asked theological questions. This blog is a place where some answers get posted!

    Archives

    November 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    September 2013

    Categories

    All
    Apologetics
    Bible
    Love
    Science
    Suffering

    RSS Feed

    Popular Religion Internet Radio with Thinking Allowed on BlogTalkRadio
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.