Hermeneutics is one of many terms that has multiple definitions, and
it's possible that even scholars unintentionally conflate terms when defining
"hermeneutics." Some definitions for hermeneutics include, "the methodology of interpretation" (SEP); "the science of interpretation"; "the study of the principles of interpretation" and "The art of finding the meaning of an author's words and phrases, and of explaining it to others" (Webster's 1828 Edition).
Another definition that the American Heritage Dictionary proffers is: "The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text."
Therefore, it appears safe to contend that hermeneutics tries to study the how of interpretation and the principles that undergird it. What does it mean to interpret (exegete) a text? What does it take to extract meaning from a text as opposed to reading our own ideas into a text? Hermeneutics wrestles with such questions, and in today's environment, one finds all types of hermeneutical approaches from the African-American hermeneutic to the standard historical-critical method. Feminist criticism is likewise common in today's scholarly world. I'm not endorsing any one approach, just letting readers know what's out there in scholarship.
My own approach to the Bible is eclectic: I see a place for social, historical, and theological concerns driving one's quest to understand the biblical text. However, my preferred method is a modified historical-grammatical approach, which privileges grammar (Hebrew-Aramaic or Greek) but does not ignore theology or the original context of what is written in Scripture.
To build on these comments, let us consider how the early Christians read the Hebrew Bible and understood it, under the guidance of holy spirit. It seems evident that the New Testament applies Old Testament passages differently from the original writers. Maybe it is better to say that the New Testament consummates and goes beyond (transcends) the apparent meaning of the Hebrew-Aramaic text. However, I don't have a problem with levels of interpretation or with
positing different senses for the same verse (e.g., the historical, moral, allegorical and analogical sense). In one place, the apostle Paul writes that the
verse about yoking a bull with a donkey refers to humans, not
animals (1 Corinthians 9:9-10). Was Paul denying that the verse originally applied to animals? I don't think so. Furthermore, Habakkuk 1:5-7 about the Chaldeans is applied to the
resurrection of Christ in Acts 13:38-41. Other examples could be adduced to show that the early Christians recognized there are different levels of scriptural interpretation. See 2 Corinthians 4:6.
One of the classical and most thorough studies regarding this subject is by Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, which is a three-volume work. As we study the book of Ezekiel, it becomes evident that more than one proper sense or application can be derived from a study of the Bible.
Friday, January 28, 2022
Hermeneutics, Exegesis, and Multiple Senses of Scripture
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
This is a key theological subject in my opinion, one that cannot be taken forgranted.
BTW, may I recommend "Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon" edited by D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, it's a good overview of the issues.
Often I find people who support the allegorical method (such as John Behr) cite the way the NT writers read the Hebrew bible, i.e. they often read it allegorically (especially in Hebrews and Paul), making typological connections.
The problem is that the NT is itself scripture, inspired of God, so it can take liberties that we cannot (such as allegorical readings, or even direct revelation), this is why I think one should be cautious with allegorical or typological readings. I think the FDS demosntrated that it was very discreet by limiting their own typological readings to typologies which the bible directly posits. Otherwise you can go off in to Origen land and start saying things like "well this doesn't fit with my conception of God, so it must be allegorical" rather than doing the harder work of wrestling with the text theologically.
I do think, however, that one must go beyond the historical-grammatical method to get a coherent theology, becuase if one posits the text as God inspired scripture the context cannot just be those of the human author, but must include the divine author.
I also think that one must also take into account philosophical issues as well, since the divine author is also the divine creator, a theological reading ought to be one that coheres with reason and natural theology.
However, I also think that one should start with the historical meaning, the immediate context, and that where ever one goes with it in terms of the larger canon and the larger theological coherence, the historical meaning should be the ground. This is because in the end, it must be recognized, that Jehovah's word was revealed in history, it's not like the Koran which proports to be an eternal revelation, but one given at a specific time, the Bible is rather a revelation given throughout history to specific people at specific times.
This is a place where I think the FDS has done a really good job of balancing things (even though, as far as I know, they havn't recently presented a systematic overview of their method), since they take the historical readings very seriosuly, but they also are willing to read scripture in light of the whole of the bible and in light of larger reasoning, (although I do sometimes think that a little bit more philosophical analysis could help :)).
As always, thanks for the recommendation. I agree with you about the need for caution regarding allegorical readings. Yes, the organization was wise to slow down when it came to that method, which the ancient Alexandrians favored (Philo liked allegories too). I remember one WT article from the 1980s that drew connections between David and the anointed, Goliath and the clergy of Christendom, and it went on to describe how the anointed (the David class) slew the figurative Goliath with allegorical smooth stones. We even had a book filled with such types/antitypes: Survival Into a New Earth, I think it was called. I studied that book with a young guy who eventually got baptized. Imagine having studies like that today. But I concede your point. Anyone who has read Philo or Origen or even Augustine can see how the allegorical method easily can go awry.
Again, I'm in favor of not just sticking with grammar or history as a way to read the Bible. Someone on Twitter spoke of herself as a "curator" of the Bible, meaning she takes a historical and grammatical approach to Scripture by perusing the papyri, inscriptions, original texts, doing archaeology, etc. That's all well and good but it won't do for someone who believes the Bible has a divine author. Granted, as Moises Silva points out, God brought us the Bible in human language. Therefore, we must appeal to syntax and grammar to make sense of the text and we need to be proficient with the socio-cultural context of antiquity and so forth. However, I don't think it's productive to become fixated on "curation" and make the Bible nothing but an artifact. That certainly is not the reason I use history, grammar and reason to study the scriptural text.
Roman, you observe that we need to recognize and appreciate the Bible's historicity. No disagreement on my end with that remark. I like to first understand the text as the original audience did, then work from there. I think that is Silva's point too. We know the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures and Christian-Greek scriptures are historical insofar as they came down to us through time. These texts were written by people at specific places/times as you said and they were composed in particular languages with specific grammatical features. We just cannot ignore or run away from the historical features of the Bible.
Truthfully, I don't expect more philosophical analysis from the FDS anytime soon. Even I have a love/hate and complicated relationship with philosophia :)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=%22the+man+of+god%22&st=&fc%5B%5D=bi&p=sen&r=occ
The more I look at this the more I see the need to address "the man of god" before 2 Tim 3:16 can be utilised correctly.
The expression ἄνθρωπος (τοῦ) θεοῦ, “man of God,” occurs sixty-eight times in the LXX. It is used as a title for Moses (e.g., Deut 33:1; Josh 14:6; 1 Chr 23:14), David (Neh 12:24), and prophets (e.g., Samuel [1 Sam 9:6, 10]; Elijah [1 Kgs 17:18, 24; 2 Kgs 1:10, 12]; Elisha [2 Kgs 4:7, 9]; unnamed [1 Kgs 13 (9x); 21:28]; and an angel [Judg 13:6–8]; cf. N. P. Bratsiotis, TDOT 1:233). It is used of Timothy (and other Christians by implication; cf. similar δοῦλον . . . κυρίου, “servant of God,” in 2 Tim 2:24). Its use here is explained by the need to contrast Timothy with the opponents. They are people who teach incorrect doctrine, promote unhealthy instruction, have a sickly craving for controversy, are corrupt in the mind, are greedy for gain, have abandoned the faith, and have inflicted their own wounds. But Timothy is a man of God akin to the prophets of old with the authority to fight the false teachers of Ephesus.
From Bill Mounce's WBC. Comments on 1 Timothy 6:11; remarks for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 are similar.
Why wouldn't the verse apply to all followers of Christ?
I didn't mean to imply you disagreed with me (or I with you), I just comment anytime I see something interesting where I feel like I have something to say, I'm pretty sure we have similar approaches.
I was born in the 80s, so I missed that era, but I'm happy they've made those changes :).
When I say philosophical analysis I mean in a very very broad sense, I don't expect musings on Plotinus or Hegelian dialectic or anything like that (that would probably worry me to be honest :P), what I mean more is just drawing out the rational implications and entailments of natural theology and the bible.
I see that the NIV obscures the phrase by the interpretation "servant of god" but not all servants of God were called "man of God", right?
It also says at 1:1 - For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
1:14 - Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.
So where did Timothy get his anointing from, god or Paul? Wouldn't this come from dedication and baptism and the acquisition of faith an knowledge?
There are a number of points of concern here.
Hebrews 6:2
1 kings 13:1 - And behold, there came a man of God out of Juda by the word (λόγῳ) of the Lord to Baethel, and Jeroboam stood at the altar to sacrifice.
Roman, I was the same way. I agreed with the substance of your post and only slightly disagree with your views on relations, but I appreciate your feedback either way. And those days of types/antitypes were interesting. One other type/antitype was Job as the type of Christ. His name means something like "object of hostility" and he was debased before Jehovah exalted him. It's interesting to think of Job as an adumbration of Christ. However, it's good we slowed down on such comparisons.
I also see what you mean about more philosophical analysis. Natural theology certainly has its uses.
Duncan, Timothy would certainly have been anointed by God. That seems to be what Paul teaches is that the anointing comes from God. See 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; 5:1-5. The anointing is closely allied with the holy spirit and through the spirit. Compare Titus 3:5-6. John first epistle likewise discusses the anointing but I don't think the Pastoral Letters use that exact language but the concept is there.
Granted, "man of God" had a special meaning in the Hebrew Bible, still, I agree with Mounce that Paul's word apply to all Christians by implication. Elders/shepherds set the example for the flock, so that what applies to the "men of God" applies to the sheep by extension.
I think you know that this is not the way I exegete scripture. Doesn't one have to deal with the letter in hand first, before looking elsewhere?
I only referenced Hebrews as it seems to have a direct connection regarding "laying on of hands" as a requirement for a christian. This does not seem to be in the sense of healing and miracles, but what is it?
Www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Numbers%2b27:15-23&version=NIV&interface=amp
Deuteronomy 34:9
Why was Joshua filled with spirit of wisdom?
I wasn't trying to lead you away from 2 Timothy or from the Pastorals, but you brought up the issue of Timothy being anointed. To my knowledge, while the letter of Timothy implies that Timothy was anointed and a man of God, please show me where either 1 or 2 Timothy declare that Timothy was anointed, period.
It's not that I doubt he was anointed: my point is that the explicit language might not appear in Paul's correspondence to Timothy. So, where do you look when that happens. How do you exegete what's not explicitly there? Or may the language is there and I just overloooked it.
Another thing is that the genenral biblical principle, even in the Hebrew Bible, is that God is the anointer. Who anointed the kings, priests, and prophets in the Hebrew Bible. Jehovah God ultimately anointed his chosen ones through men and olive oil.
Laying on of hands can refer to appointing someone to a congregational office; also connected with the holy spirit. See Acts 8:18; 1 Timothy 5:22.
Didn't Joshua need a spirit of wisdom as Moses successor? Numbers 27:18.
I reiterate that I'm not trying to turn from Timothy before examining the letters. However, you brought up anointing, and I don't know of the Pastorals using such terminology, only Corinthians and the Johannine epistles. That is, in the sense of being anointed with the holy spirit. However, Titus 3:5-6 refers to the spirit being poured out, which is God anointing Christians.
BTW, there's also more than one way to exegete scriptures, more than one hermeneutic.
I must confess that I also am not sure what point you're trying to extract from 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Regardless of what man of God means, all followers of Christ can apply those words.
Here's another suggested way to read 1 Timothy 5:22: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26423731
From that paper - Apart from the passage under discussion, 3 texts in particular have been cited as evidence for an association of the laying on of hands with ordination. Marshall, for example, cites 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6, and Acts 13:1-3 as evidence linking the laying on of hands with appointment to office in the church. In the first 2 cases—both of which come from the Pastoral Epistles themselves—the laying on of hands is not directly associated with office, function, or authority but with the imparting of an unnamed spiritual "gift" (χάρισ).
I also see the verse in Hebrews as associated.
The spirit
https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/27-18.htm
& The spirit of wisdom
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/34-9.htm
are not the same thing.
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/11-2.htm
Romans 3:1-2.
The NET bible footnote for Numbers 27:18 is instructive. It gives a couple of possible interpretations for the verse, but one thing seems certain, Joshua's spirit of wisdom and ability to lead Israel would only be derived from the spirit of Jehovah. So they may not be the same, but they're likely connected.
The scripture on Isaiah 11 makes a similar connection. The messiah has Jehovah's spirit upon him and the spirit of wisdom, etc
Absolutely everything originates with Jehovah in one way or another, but that is not the issue. Its the route it takes and who has what. Isaiah 11 demonstrates categories.
Acts 16:1–5 is one possible answer to Pauls putting his hands on Timothy.
The account and imagery in 2 Tim is very Hebraic & he was appointed "the man of god", to the Hebrews which indicates the writings in question.
Sorry but I disagree that it's not the issue. At least, it's one of the issues you raised. So, let's go back to square one in this thread.
You first brought up the "man of God" issue, then you asked who anointed Timothy, God or Paul? My subsequent comments have been addressing both questions you raised. My answer to your second query was God anointed Timothy, not Paul. That is what the scriptures show, including the Pastoral Letters by implication. I didn't ask the question but I thought you were seeking an answer :-)
Isaiah 11 shows who anoints the Messiah and the GNT says God anoints Christians. I don't see how either one of those statements could be in dispute. See Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38. God anoints men and women and the Messiah through his spirit. No one can have the spirit of wisdom that Isaiah or other verses discuss without the ruach YHWH. That's the Bible's perspective anyway. Sort of like the categories in Galatians 5:22-23: you can't have them without divine pneuma.
Jehovah God uses often uses humans or he uses creatures to accomplish his will. Therefore, even the spirit is poured out through Christ at Pentecost and when the apostles laid their hands on someone, who was ultimately bringing about the effects? Some make a distinction between primary and secondary causes or remote and proximate causes, but everything goes back to God, especially when we're talking about anointing someone. But maybe you have something in mind besides anointing.
2 Timothy may be Hebraic but we cannot discount it's Hellenic/Hellenistic features either. And I've conceded that Timothy was appointed (anointed) a man of God. Yet that doesn't mean others cannot be men and women of God, and I'm talking about folks not even in authority and who are not prophets.
Look at it this way. Paul laid out qualifications for elders and diakonoi in Timothy and Titus: but are we to assume that those qualifications only apply to elders and diakonoi? Granted, some do, but what about other qualifications mentioned in those accounts?
If you feel I'm not addressing your issue, maybe you could spell out your concern. But I was taking your words at face value.
At the time of 2 Tim, was Paul in prison?
Through the OT is there ever a time period where more than one "man of God" is mentioned?
Can we just stick with 2 Tim at the moment please.
Do you think that "man of God" & "body of Christ" are effectively the same?
1 Tim 6:11 >>>But you, man of God,<<< flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love ,endurance and gentleness.
Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1-3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law, and Matrilineal Descent
Shaye J. D. Cohen
&
https://oxfordre.com/classics/classics/abstract/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-8130?rskey=6CBllV&result=14
Paul was likely in prison when he wrote 2 Timothy. See 4:6-8.
Man of God is used in the OT to reference the prophets. I normally see it used in a singular sense but body of Christ is a collective expression used metaphorically. They are not the same. And when Paul writes to Timothy, he's the man of God that Paul has in mind.
Post a Comment