Topic: Principles of Biblical/Literary Interpretation. (Read 3584 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** July 21, 2004, 10:45:00 PM »

There seems to be general ignorance about how Christians interpret the Scriptures.

These principles are the general principles used over the centuries by Christian scholars. And that is an important point: Experts. There are some on this forum that defer to a expert if the expert sneezes. You'd think this will add some credibility. But consistency is too much to ask for. Nonetheless, this thread will at least dispense with some strawmen.

You will understand how educated Christians interpret the Scriptures, generally, throughout the centuries. These are not necessarily in order of importance.

1. Scripture interprets Scripture.

A no brainer. If you didn't understand one computer programming book, you would find another computer programming book that could help you. You would not use the Scriptures, Hamlet, or a biologist. If a collection of similar documents with a similar purpose, you use the documents within that collection to interpret the other documents.

2. Use clearer passages to interpret the less clear passages.

There is no doubt that there are passages that aren't very clear. But some passages are explicit. And some are in the middle. Use the ones in the middle towards explicit to understand the more murky passages.

3. When trying to deal with a specific doctrine, take ALL of the passages on the subject, and formulate the doctrine with an eye to the other principles.

In other words, don't build a whole doctrine based on just one passage. Or, don't ignore a passage that seems difficult or complex, or that seemingly refutes your formulation.

Example passage: 1 Corinthians 15:29

"Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?"

The Mormons have built a whole doctrine on this passage. But who the heck knows what it means, really? There are a number of theories, but that is all there is. You would take it into account in a doctrine on baptism so that your formulation is consistent with the passage, even if one isn't really sure what the passage means. And I know of no one that really get's this one.

4. The author's intended meaning determines the meaning.

Ie, you don't get to just make it up. You don't get to bring your own preconception to the passage. It may be difficult in some cases to determine the author's intent, but when in doubt you go with the passage at its face. Your own intent has no place in the interpretation.

5. Interpret in light of the literary techniques that are being used. If the passage or book is poetry, than interpret it as poetry. If it is metaphor, then metaphor. If it is historical narrative, then historical narrative. [edit: I'm really talking about genre here.]

This is such an obvious principle, but skeptics struggle with it. They'll take a poetry passage and say it contradicts another passage- which is historical narrative. They'll use the same methodology for each passage, and in doing so do an injustice to each.

6. A description of events is not necessarily endorsing those events.

This one is a step above general, but is helpful in OT interpretation.

7. Keep your eye firmly on context.

Why is the author speaking? To whom is he speaking? Is there anything noteworthy about your answers? What's his point? Is he using a literary device unique to his own culture? Is he using a literary device, period?

8. If you are working with translations, when in doubt, go to the originals.

I could go on a bit, but I think they are getting less general and more specific. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but I just wanted to give a general view.

You will all please note that I didn't say that one had to assume that the Scriptures are true or inerrant or inspired in order to interpret them. In fact, though perhaps re-worded in some cases, these principles can be applied to any documents or collection of documents.

CMJour · « **Reply #1 on:** September 18, 2004, 11:39:23 AM »

"1. Scripture interprets Scripture.

A no brainer. If you didn't understand one computer programming book, you would find another computer programming book that could help you. You would not use the Scriptures, Hamlet, or a biologist. If a collection of similar documents with a similar purpose, you use the documents within that collection to interpret the other documents. "

Before the Bible was a collection of the books that it is now, how did those who compiled the books know that the collection they were making would be useful in interpreting itself? Before you answer this see my response to your second principle of interpretation.

"2. Use clearer passages to interpret the less clear passages.

There is no doubt that there are passages that aren't very clear. But some passages are explicit. And some are in the middle. Use the ones in the middle towards explicit to understand the more murky passages. "

If there is a passage by one author of one book that is unclear and you have to look to another book by a different author to clarify the former passage, how did those who compiled the texts know that the author of the obscure passage intended to have his words convey the message of the "clearer" passage?

"3. When trying to deal with a specific doctrine, take ALL of the passages on the subject, and formulate the doctrine with an eye to the other principles.

In other words, don't build a whole doctrine based on just one passage. Or, don't ignore a passage that seems difficult or complex, or that seemingly refutes your formulation. "

Agree

"4. The author's intended meaning determines the meaning.

Ie, you don't get to just make it up. You don't get to bring your own preconception to the passage. It may be difficult in some cases to determine the author's intent, but when in doubt you go with the passage at its face. Your own intent has no place in the interpretation. "

How can we fully succeed at this if we have to use some authors to interpret other authors? Didn't those who compiled the texts have preconceptions as to what books would explain the obscure passages of other books?

"5. Interpret in light of the literary techniques that are being used. If the passage or book is poetry, than interpret it as poetry. If it is metaphor, then metaphor. If it is historical narrative, then historical narrative. [edit: I'm really talking about genre here.] "

Agree

"6. A description of events is not necessarily endorsing those events. "

Agree

"7. Keep your eye firmly on context.

Why is the author speaking? To whom is he speaking? Is there anything noteworthy about your answers? What's his point? Is he using a literary device unique to his own culture? Is he using a literary device, period? "

Agree

"8. If you are working with translations, when in doubt, go to the originals. "

Or at any rate, the oldest texts we can find.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** September 18, 2004, 07:11:32 PM »

It looks to me as though your questions about the first three items do not specifically relate to interpretation. Even if it was completely ambiguous as to what books to highlight, these principles would still be valid, just as they are to any secular collections or what not. I am not saying that your questions are unreasonable questions, only pointing out that they do not change the validity and usefulness of the principles.

However, your questions also give me an opportunity to make sure that everyone understands that the NT is a collection of various documents and not one unified writing. So, very often we think about 'external' evidence for the Bible as though because it is all in one book for our convenience the various books in it are not independant entities of their own. In otherwords, you can get external corroboration of Matthew by looking to Luke.

Some think that is a copout, but it is a plain and obvious fact. If it was argued that something like Tacitus' Annals were a real external source, in order to prove my point imagine if we decided to bundle every single ancient document into one single book. Does Tacitus or any other document cease to become an external source because it happens to be bound together in one anthology for our convenience?

I know that you are not arguing otherwise, I'm just using your post as an opportunity to point out that we could add another set of principles that pertain to interpreting a passage. First you look at the context of the passage within its own limits, ie, you'd look for internal evidence. Looking towards other books of the NT for help in interpreting the documents in the collection is an obvious next step, but in doing so, technically it is external evidence.

Now, what about how these documents were selected? This was not an arbitrary thing and the history of the canonization of the NT is really a history of RECOGNIZING authorized works in the midst of the Christian community rather then endowing upon them that authority.

There was a basic criteria: 1. the documents had to have been written by an apostle or one with apostolic authority. 2. The documents had to have had wide use in the Christian church. 3. The documents needed to have a solid textual tradition at the congregation presenting it. 4. And the documents needed to agree with what had been received orally.

1. Some very good documents like the Sheperd of Hermes were excluded from the canon because they were not written with apostolic authority. This is very wise. It means that the norm for the doctrine in the community would rest primarily on the actual teachings of those who first received them. One should expect it to go without saying that those actually sent out by Jesus personally should have the highest levels of credibility possible for the transmission of 'true Christianity.'

2. If a work was highly favored in one church but no other church used it, it was rightly doubted. Worthy documents were spread throughout the Christian church. If the document was really worthy, the majority of the Christian church will have recognized it.

3. Very much like the papist succession, there was some concern about carefully transmitting documents from one generation to the next. A document that appeared suddenly in the second century written allegedly by some apostle was not going to be trusted. In theory the document could have been really written by an apostle. But if so, where was it for 150 years and why hadn't any of the other churches heard about it?

4. The canon didn't come into fully delineanted until about 350 AD but that doesn't mean that it wasn't being outlined far earlier. The four Gospels, for example, appear to have been eleveated above all others that were in circulation by 130 AD. And Paul's letters had also gained prominence. Certain books, like 2 Peter or 2 or 3 John took longer to be trusted. But the point is that these documents had already achieved wide circulation.

For example, one of our earliest fragments, the Rylands Fragment, is a piece of John dated about 120ish AD. It was found in Egypt and scholars believe that the copy really originated from there. Though it isn't geographically far, it shows that these documents were already moving far and wide WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF THE SECOND GENERATION CHRISTIANS.

The Apostle John, for example, taught Ignatius, who taught Polycarp. And we have some writings of Ignatius. Five letters, I think. In otherwords, right alongside the transmission of the written documents there was oral transmission, as well. There was real effort and real pride within the churches to say that they had been founded by an Apostle and had a clear transmission of authority (this came to a head with the rise of the church of Rome and the papacy).

However, it would not be reasonable to expect this oral transmission to last accurately for a long time. At least, it would be difficult, obviously, to authenticate an oral transmission, after, say 1,000 years. So, it is really natural that the oral transmission would have been used as a final check and balance on the documents recognized as authoritative, but then allowed to fade away, allowing the documents themselves to become the source for the final word.

The canon was probably actually done by about 250 AD (ish) but it took the Christianizing of the Empire under Constantine for it to be ratified by all the churches. Remember that before this, such a ratification wasn't really possible. Since Claudius (c. 50 AD), Christians had been persecuted, and this lasted right up to Constantine (c. 310 AD). It really wasn't in their best interest to gather together in one spot, you understand. Even after this there were some Roman emporers that turned against the Christian church.

Interesting note: The high value that Christians had placed on the Scriptures was in fact very well known by the Romans from early on. When Romans arrested or threatened Christians, they always came after the sacred documents, as well, recognizing their power within that community. Christians that turned over the documents were called 'turner-overs,' or, in Latin, 'traditor,' our 'traitor.'

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Traditor

I'd suggest reading Bruce Metzger's "The Canon of the NT" and check out www.ntcanon.org for some good raw material.

jesusboy · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2005, 03:26:16 PM »

How about interpreting scripture at face value. what it's says is what it's says. NO personal interpritation. Application yes. Some denominations don't do literal interpratation and it causes problems.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2005, 04:02:35 PM »

Everything has a literal meaning. But it may be literally figurative. In that case, if something is obviously a figure of speech (for example) you would not be getting the literal meaning unless you interpreted it intelligently. Lack of intelligent interpretation is rampant both in and outside of Christianity.

I've discovered that illiteracy is the chief obstacle to finding truth the more that I go.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #5 on:** May 18, 2005, 09:51:23 PM »

There are many good points to what sntjohnny has said. But the strict 'fundamentalist' frame of mind is what scares me. For the bias is already set up that we MUST first approach the scriptures with the strict literal view. I don't agree with that approach.

I would rather just approach it with no preconcecption, and let the word interpret itself. Whether it is to be literal, poetry, metaphor, etc....all this will follow with diligent study.

Harry_is_always_right · « **Reply #6 on:** August 10, 2005, 04:10:22 PM »

A lot of your points on the list stem from you first, so I think it's most important to address this.

You use an analogy to two computer manuals, one helping interpret the other if it is unclear. The analogy is bogus for a number of reasons.

1. If two things compared in an analogy are not closely the same, it is unlikely the analogy will bare much more than a shade of the truth. A computer manual is not really anything like the bible. It has contemporary, identifiable authors, writing for a single clear purpose; to help you understand computers. I'm sure you can think of many other major differences.

2. If one does not understand certain aspects of a literary piece one needs to address specific literature on that aspect not from within the same literature, or other literature aiming at the same end. E.g. If one does not understand a word, one can look it up in a dictionary. Eg2. If one wants to understand about the history around the literature or subject then one needs to look into history not from the same source or deeply similar sources. Again I'm sure you can think of other examples.

3. Finding out about a scripture is exactly the sort of writing that needs exterior investigation, for some of the reasons you state. How are we to know how writers of the time intended the passages to be read simply from within themselves? As you say doing this is bringing our own prejudices to the scripture and this must be avoided for a clear and accurate interpretation.

Allegorical literature was very popular around the writing of the gospels. Just a thought xxx

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** August 29, 2005, 10:39:29 AM »

"1. If two things compared in an analogy are not closely the same, it is unlikely the analogy will bare much more than a shade of the truth. A computer manual is not really anything like the bible. It has contemporary, identifiable authors, writing for a single clear purpose; to help you understand computers. I'm sure you can think of many other major differences."

None of this speaks to the point that I was making. That the Bible and a handful of computer manuals are different sorts of works is irrelevant, especially given the fact that the Bible already is a collection of a different sort of works. The point is not completely without merit. Within the Bible you would want to be careful to consider genre. It would be best, for example, to examine a passage from Matthew with the context given in Mark, Luke, John, and perhaps Acts, before looking to see what the epistles say. After all, the four Gospels have a pretty clear purpose as well: to help you understand the person of Christ.

That the authors are 'contemporary' or 'identifiable' is a completely rubbish POV. CS Lewis called it chronological snobbery. After 1,000 years had passed and Larry Ullman was no longer contemporary, does that mean we wouldn't still use his book on MySql to help understand his book on Php AND MySql, first, if there was some ambiguity in the former? Absolutely not. This principle works for living people and dead people alike.

Furthermore, the fact that we can identify Larry Ullman today as the author doesn't mean that 1,000 years from now we would know much about Larry Ullman. We probably wouldn't be able to verify his existence. Or tht he was really the author. It would be speculation of course, and let's remember, speculation=knowledge, but we might be able to posit a common source document for both the "MySql" work and the "PHP AND MySql" work, so even if Larry Ullman wasn't actually the author, we could probably generate evidence that these later works were derived from a single source and author before him.

And we'd call that scholarship, and knowledge, and more reasonable then just taking the traditional POV that its far simpler just to accept that Larry Ullman did exist and write the two books.

But here is the hitch- none of this is relevant to whether or not it is more reasonable or not to look first to books by the same author, or to the same genre, or to the same purpose, etc etc.

"2. If one does not understand certain aspects of a literary piece one needs to address specific literature on that aspect not from within the same literature, or other literature aiming at the same end. E.g. If one does not understand a word, one can look it up in a dictionary. Eg2. If one wants to understand about the history around the literature or subject then one needs to look into history not from the same source or deeply similar sources. Again I'm sure you can think of other examples."

This is erroneous. I'm not sure that I understand what you are talking about exactly, but let's take E.G. 1. If one does not understand a word, yes, one can look it up in a dictionary. But how do the philogists figure out what those definitions are in the first place? Hate to break it to you, but they use the process that I've described.

EG2 just seems completely out of whack. That's like saying, "I am interested in learning about the rise of Rome, but I'm not going to read any material from any Romans that may have witnessed various aspects of it. Instead, I'm going to focus on secondary sources. huh?

EG2 is just backwards. Its absolutely false. You absolutely will look at the total historical account given by the same source, and you absolutely will look at 'deeply similar' accounts. If these are still unhelpful, or even if they are, you then expand your circle of inquiry.

Remember again that other sources will tend to draw off of those primary sources and make use of exactly the process I'm talking about, just as those who put together dictionaries determine the meaning of a word using usage analysis more or less how I have described.

A technical note would be good here. Dictionaries attempt to give us definitions, though they still really only record 'usage.' They have the advantage of being able to monitor contemporary trends. Lexicons are a little different- they are really only monitoring ancient trends.

3. Finding out about a scripture is exactly the sort of writing that needs exterior investigation, for some of the reasons you state. How are we to know how writers of the time intended the passages to be read simply from within themselves? As you say doing this is bringing our own prejudices to the scripture and this must be avoided for a clear and accurate interpretation."

The question is not unanswerable. Some of the processes I've described can help us a great deal. Starting from the inside and working steadily out- and re-evaluating as you go- you can pretty well figure out most of the time exactly how they were intended to be read. Often it just boils down to whether or not you intend to obey grammatical and other linguistic rules that we tend to use in the rest of our experience.

So, if we are looking at a writer's use of the word 'soma' and had never seen this word used before, we could make a guess from the context. If we have enough contexts, we can make better and better guesses. The Scriptures are just a sub-set of a larger context of the Hellenized Roman world, so we have even more contexts to look at to nail down what the word was used to mean. This is no different then what dictionaries do. Perhaps its possible that the author said 'soma' but MEANT 'sarx.' Without being able to ask him, that is not knowable, is it? We have to restrain ourselves to the data in front of us- 'soma.'

But if you don't feel constrained by the apparent definition of the word and want to pretend that since its possible the author meant something else, you of course can interject your own idea. Of course, that's the death of communication, ultimately, isn't it?

"Allegorical literature was very popular around the writing of the gospels. Just a thought xxx"

You say that as though it were impossible to detect allegory. CS Lewis once confronted this charge in regards to the Scriptures. As a person fluent in many languages and whose expertise specifically was ancient mythology and legend, he had the highest credentials when he pointed out that in many respects the Scriptures, especially the four Gospels, were significantly different then allegory, or legend.

If you could demonstrate it was allegorical, that would be one thing. I happen to believe your post was allegorical. Since allegory is popular today, I think I'm reasonable in interpreting your post as allegory. So, I'm really offended.

When you were talking about 'computer manuals' you almost certainly were trying to say that you represent the 'computer manual.' You clearly think you have a higher analytical ability then the rest of us. By 'computer' you surely must mean me, or others who disagree with your analysis. I resent the implications of your post.

And by 'allegory' you probably meant historical narrative. And that would mean I shouldn't treat it as allegory, so now I have to go piece together a history of analogies between bibles and computer manuals, as that is surely your purpose. Of course, I derived the idea that it was historical narrative and not allegory by first assuming it was allegory and that you meant something else by 'allegory' so now I have to revisit the possibility that when you said allegory, you meant historical narrative, but in a previous post, someone- not you, of course- we'll call him Q- originally had said 'historical narrative' and not 'allegory' because that would allow us to conclude, this time with the full weight of reasoned scholarship, that your post was meant to be understood as a poem of the soul, of deep longing, and a hope that you could hold my hand. As evidenced by the passage where you said: "I'm sure you can think of many other major differences" but by 'many' you really meant 'me'. Very touching, man. Very touching.

But you can't hold my hand, because I'm married. And by hand I mean an astronomical object, and by marriage I mean a newt.

Harry_is_always_right · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2005, 05:32:44 PM »

Ha ha, you're wrong, but i like you.

Yes of course you need to address other primary sources, i wasn't at all implying that one should only use secondary sources in research, that's clearly absurd. What i did mean (and let's just talk about the bible to avoid anaolgies) was that to find out about the history and context of the bible, one needs to look at more than just the bible. The bible cannot from within itself tell us all we need to know about what it expresses. How else do we find out the context in which it is written, or about the people who wrote it or any other number of factors affecting its interpretation.
I could write an article on anything and it would be very hard just from the article itself for you to know how it was intended to be read or what is true and false within it. You would have to find out about me and about the things to which it refers, which would at best be a challenge from just the text itself. Surely the same is true of the bible (woops analogy time)? We wouldn't JUST figure out any other book from within itself. I don't see why the bible should be treated any differently, but maybe that's a "faith issue".

*Longs to feel the sweet, warm caress of jonny's palm against mine own*

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** August 30, 2005, 06:09:20 PM »

"What i did mean (and let's just talk about the bible to avoid anaolgies) was that to find out about the history and context of the bible, one needs to look at more than just the bible."

We are probably talking about slightly different issues, then. I'm definitely comfortable looking outside the Bible to learn about the history of time, and obviously to put the Bible in 'context' that means putting it within a larger body. Of course, that larger body can be seen in context, too, and that would include the Bible.

The reason why the Bible doesn't quite fit this situation is because, as I said, it is a collection of a number of different works, already. Its a compilation, an anthology. Lumping it all together is just an arbitrary, but handy, tool for having easy access.

In this sense, then, we would put Luke, for example in a broader context. And that context would include Matthew, John, Mark, and Acts.

"but maybe that's a "faith issue"."

Maybe for some. Not for me.

"*Longs to feel the sweet, warm caress of jonny's palm against mine own*"

It's times like these that I curse hetereo-sexual monogamy! Drat.

Harry_is_always_right · « **Reply #10 on:** August 30, 2005, 06:22:40 PM »

Ok, then we pretty much agree although i wouldn't say the bible's anthology status gives it any greater propensity for self interpretation than any other anthology, especially given that it's not the complete version. Bit like a "complete" works of Shakespeare where the publisher left out Othello and Henry V cause he thought they were bit rubbish.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** August 30, 2005, 06:47:02 PM »

Well now, that's a different subject altogether. While it does relate to interpretational technique in the sense that we would want to consult some of these other works, these other works do not change the substance of the principal.

I'm pretty well up on the formation of the NT, including why many works were rejected, and why some were accepted at all. Given the information that I am aware of, instead of cynically wondering what conspiracy to suppress alterative viewpoints went into the formation of the NT canon, we ought to be thankful that someone closer to the scene both geographically and chronologically went to the effort of sorting out the crap from the reliable stuff

Don't think someone trying to keep Othello out of the complete works of Shakespeare. Think of someone trying to keep Dilbert out of the complete works of Shakespeare.

Tony N · « **Reply #12 on:** February 01, 2006, 08:15:41 AM »

What I wish could be conveyed to the nominal Christian trying to understand the Scriptures would be the understanding that one should not mistake God's going with His goal.

For instance, God's goal is not judgment. That is not the end for all mankind. That is a precurser to His goal. What is His ultimate goal for mankind? Study the Scriptures and find out. The truth is there.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #13 on:** April 04, 2006, 04:43:55 PM »

I, too, once misunderstood how most (rational) Christians interpret Scripture. But apologists set me straight on that note even before I went agnostic.

There are those who take the bits they like and chuck the bits they don't...

There are those who take the Scriptures and twist their meanings to suit their own ends... (can anyone say "white supremecy?")

There are those who, well-meaning though they may be, misinterpret the Scriptures and call their skewed readings (such as the "spilling his seed" passage as meaning masturbation is condemned) literal.

There are those who read too much into the Scriptures...

...and there are those who read it with a clear head on their shoulders.

If I were a Christian, I'd definitely agree with Johnny's principles. They just make the most sense.[/i]

Zagzagel · « **Reply #14 on:** November 21, 2008, 05:36:53 PM »

There are those who read too much into the Scriptures...

...and there are those who read it with a clear head on their shoulders.

If I were a Christian, I'd definitely agree with Johnny's principles. They just make the most sense

And you are no longer "Christian" for what reason? This is one strange thing I've read today.. but I think.. I think.. that I can understand it. Maybe.

Paladin · « **Reply #15 on:** May 27, 2009, 11:32:52 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on July 21, 2004, 10:45:00 PM

There seems to be general ignorance about how Christians interpret the Scriptures.

Wouldn't it be more to the point to ponder the meaning of "Rightly dividing the word of truth?" [II Tim 2:15] Who really cares how someone "interprets the scriptures? So far, "interpreting scriptures" has resulted in several hundreds of denominations, and several missions of deaths because of the differences.

Quote

These principles are the general principles used over the centuries by Christian scholars. And that is an important point: Experts. There are some on this forum that defer to a expert if the expert sneezes. You'd think this will add some credibility. But consistency is too much to ask for. Nonetheless, this thread will at least dispense with some strawmen.

You will understand how educated Christians interpret the Scriptures, generally, throughout the centuries.

Why would books authored by "unlearned and ignorant men" be interpreted by "experts" be considered somehow an advantage over having ignorant and unlearned men simply read it to us?

Quote

These are not necessarily in order of importance.

1. Scripture interprets Scripture.
2. Use clearer passages to interpret the less clear passages.
3. When trying to deal with a specific doctrine, take ALL of the passages on the subject, and formulate the doctrine with an eye to the other principles.
4. The author's intended meaning determines the meaning.
5. Interpret in light of the literary techniques that are being used. If the passage or book is poetry, than interpret it as poetry. If it is metaphor, then metaphor. If it is historical narrative, then historical narrative. [edit: I'm really talking about genre here.]
6. A description of events is not necessarily endorsing those events.
7. Keep your eye firmly on context.
8. If you are working with translations, when in doubt, go to the originals.

Not a bad list, in fact, really a pretty good list.

I would make a slightly different list, but not necessarily a better list.

Consider why you are looking at the book.
Pray for guidance.
Confess your sins.
Pray again.
Begin to read with fear and trembling.
Pray again.

Consider:
1) What is said.
2) To whom
3) 'bout whut?
4) why?
5) when?
6) compare with other books that discuss similar issues.
7) compare with other books that discuss dissimilar issues, to provide standard for how words are used throughout the work.
8) How are the words found in this portion of the work, used in a different portion of the work?
9) Can you locate when meanings of words change?
10) Can you document that change?
11) Can you justify that change?
12) Can you demonstrate that it is in fact a change?
13) Can you live with your findings?
14) Can you afford to die with your findings?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #16 on:** May 27, 2009, 01:09:22 PM »

"Wouldn't it be more to the point to ponder the meaning of "Rightly dividing the word of truth?" [II Tim 2:15]"

No. In fact, that is in fact an exact violation of these principles. In the first place, it is the erection of an entire hermeneutic principle based on a single passage. See principle #3.

Or, if you wish to have such a principle based on such a tiny shred of evidence, at least give a small amount of significance to it. Otherwise, you'll find yourself baptizing people for the dead while you go along 'rightly dividing.' Why not? They both have a single passage to support them.

But 'rightly dividing' isn't even just a single passage. It is a single word and is used only once in the entire New Testament. I will say again, Orthotomeo, the word translated by the KJV as 'rightly dividing' is used only once in the entire New Testament. See: http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=2+Timothy+2%3A15&section=0&it=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search

We have no good way of being sure exactly what Paul means here. I think 'rightly handling' makes much more sense, but one can't take their life and doctrine on it one way or another. The same is true of all hapax legomena.

"Who really cares how someone "interprets the scriptures? So far, "interpreting scriptures" has resulted in several hundreds of denominations, and several missions of deaths because of the differences."

But 'rightly dividing' is nothing more than another way of interpreting the scriptures. There is no way to avoid interpreting the scriptures or anything else for that matter. But some methods are better than others.

"Why would books authored by "unlearned and ignorant men" be interpreted by "experts" be considered somehow an advantage over having ignorant and unlearned men simply read it to us?"

Unlearned and ignorant does not mean irrational and random.

Quote
These are not necessarily in order of importance.

""Not a bad list, in fact, really a pretty good list.""

Thanks. But you included #3 in that, but offered an alternative that is virtually the epitome of a violation of that principle. :)

"I would make a slightly different list, but not necessarily a better list."

I have no real objection to your lists. Since I know what perspective you're coming from I might have some quibbles on how you apply them. But the second list is really a methodology of interpretation. :) As for the first list, perhaps it is enough to say that I am not a presuppositionalist.

I hadn't had a chance yet to welcome you to my forum. Sorry about that. Welcome!

Paladin · « **Reply #17 on:** May 27, 2009, 04:59:47 PM »

[quote author] (Paladin) "Wouldn't it be more to the point to ponder the meaning of "Rightly dividing the word of truth?" [II Tim 2:15]"

(St.J) No. In fact, that is in fact an exact violation of these principles. In the first place, it is the erection of an entire hermeneutic principle based on a single passage. See principle #3.[/quote]

(P) So you find YOUR list of principles in exact violation of scripture itself, and you choose YOUR principles over the scripture? The problem I have with that is you wind up saying that you must ignore certain clearly stated inspired instruction, to adhere to a set of artificially established principles.

Quote

(St.J) Or, if you wish to have such a principle based on such a tiny shred of evidence, at least give a small amount of significance to it. Otherwise, you'll find yourself baptizing people for the dead while you go along 'rightly dividing.' Why not? They both have a single passage to support them.

(P) So you negate a basic instruction to avoid having to account for a passage you don't comprehend with clarity?

Quote

(St.J) But 'rightly dividing' isn't even just a single passage. It is a single word and is used only once in the entire New Testament. I will say again, Orthotomeo, the word translated by the KJV as 'rightly dividing' is used only once in the entire New Testament. See: http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=2+Timothy+2%3A15&section=0&it=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search

We have no good way of being sure exactly what Paul means here. I think 'rightly handling' makes much more sense, but one can't take their life and doctrine on it one way or another. The same is true of all hapax legomena.

(P) I have no problem with "rightly handling" - it makes perfect sense to me. Look St.J, If I begin a study of the New testament with the study of the life of Christ, and begin to develope word-meanings based on a misunderstanding because looking for truth in all the wrong places, when studying for truth in the order the books were inspired to be written, why is "handling aright" such a bad thing? If I study the chronologically developed New Testament, I will see what it is the Holy Spirit wanted me to understand in prioritized form, and will learn an entirely different set of word-meanings, this time, deveoped on the Holy Spirit's revelation, instead of my own privately selected methodology.

Quote

(P) "Who really cares how someone "interprets the scriptures? So far, "interpreting scriptures" has resulted in several hundreds of denominations, and several missions of deaths because of the differences."

(St.J) But 'rightly dividing' is nothing more than another way of interpreting the scriptures. There is no way to avoid interpreting the scriptures or anything else for that matter. But some methods are better than others.

(P)
Handle rightly = 3718 orthotomew - 1) to cut straight, to cut straight ways 1a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right 2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly

Interpret = 1329 diermeeneuw - 1) to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound 2) to translate into one's native language

Are you saying you do not know the difference between following the straight presentation of scripture, and "unfolding the meaning of what is said?"

Quote

(P)
"Why would books authored by "unlearned and ignorant men" be interpreted by "experts" be considered somehow an advantage over having ignorant and unlearned men simply read it to us?"

(St.J) Unlearned and ignorant does not mean irrational and random.

Why not just answer the question instead of trying to ambush the meaning? I did not say unlearned and ignorant means irrational and random. Nor can you get that meaning from anything in my post.

Look, scripture is not a book you give to people with too much time on their hands to read, just to fill in their free time. It must be read by people with a desire to find truth, to the extent they are willing to take whatever time is required, to search for it.

It was God who said "Come, let us reason together." THAT does not project an "irrational" response. "Search the scriptures daily" does not project "randomness."

Your response says "Oh, never mind all that straight persuit, just jump to the agreed upon conclusion and if it attains a certain level of agreement, it must be accepted.

Quote

(P)
These are not necessarily in order of importance.

""Not a bad list, in fact, really a pretty good list.""

(St.J) Thanks. But you included #3 in that, but offered an alternative that is virtually the epitome of a violation of that principle. :)

(P) That is why I labelled it "different."

Quote

(P) "I would make a slightly different list, but not necessarily a better list."

(St.J) I have no real objection to your lists. Since I know what perspective you're coming from I might have some quibbles on how you apply them. But the second list is really a methodology of interpretation. :) As for the first list, perhaps it is enough to say that I am not a presuppositionalist.

(P) And your list is .....???"

Quote

(St.J) I hadn't had a chance yet to welcome you to my forum. Sorry about that. Welcome!

(P) No apology necessary. I like what I am seeing. Don't necessarily agree with what I read, but don't necessarily disagree either. Need to have time to digest the effects of conclusions reached by the authors.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** May 27, 2009, 05:39:15 PM »

"(P) So you find YOUR list of principles in exact violation of scripture itself, and you choose YOUR principles over the scripture?"

The point is that what you seem to think the passage means is not as clearly 'scriptural' as you suggest. You raised the passage as a contrast to having good interpretation techniques and it is hard to see how 'right division' contradicts what I offered. We are left wondering just what it means to 'rightly divide.' The passage itself provides no further elaboration and the rest of the Scriptures are silent on orthotomeo as well.

"(P) So you negate a basic instruction to avoid having to account for a passage you don't comprehend with clarity?"

What makes you so sure it is basic? If it was as basic as you suppose it would be stated more often and with more clarity.

"(P) I have no problem with "rightly handling" - it makes perfect sense to me."

Your saying this makes me wonder if I have over-reached. Are you a dispensationalist? It looks like it. Do you have another passage that drives you to be a dispensationalist other than this passage?

"I will see what it is the Holy Spirit wanted me to understand in prioritized form, and will learn an entirely different set of word-meanings, this time, deveoped on the Holy Spirit's revelation, instead of my own privately selected methodology."

I think that the things we understand by the Holy Spirit alone are not word-meanings and the like. For example, when Jesus says it wouldn't be right to give the dogs the food belonging to the children, I don't think you need the Holy Spirit to understand what is meant by the word 'dog.'

By contrast, I think fully comprehending the wisdom of God's plan of salvation would be something that the Holy Spirit must empower. Ie, one can objectively discern the plan of salvation from the Scriptures, but apart from the HS it will seem foolish or irrational or even wicked (ie, atheists complaining about a barbaric God that would kill his own son).

Except for the obvious and important caveat that some passages are difficult and that the original languages poses additional difficulty, since the Scriptures come to us in written form they obey reasonably objective written rules true for all literature. Which is good, because otherwise they'd be useless and unneeded. God could just skip the whole Word thing and speak directly and only in our own hearts. But this is not what he has apparently done.

"Are you saying you do not know the difference between following the straight presentation of scripture, and "unfolding the meaning of what is said?""

I will await to hear your thoughts on dispensationalism. I have seen this passage blown into a huge system that simply cannot be supported by this one verse employing a word we have not ever seen elsewhere in the 'wild.'

It's a simple reality of translation, especially for languages that no one speaks anymore: the more oft you see the word the more confident can you be of the range of meanings for that word since you see it in more contexts.

"Why not just answer the question instead of trying to ambush the meaning?"

I did answer the question. Just because they were not considered educated by the scribes does not mean that they couldn't think and speak clearly and cogently. Besides, we must remember the context of the verse you alluded to. Use your own principles. WHO said it? Why should we suppose that they were right?

"It must be read by people with a desire to find truth, to the extent they are willing to take whatever time is required, to search for it."

To the extent that I agree with that, the passage in question doesn't support it. If anything, the passage in question supports my contention that one must take the business of interpretation very seriously. You seem to be saying the same thing in this example, but you offered the Timothy passage as though it were not itself calling for careful use and interpretation of the Scriptures.

"(P) That is why I labelled it "different.""

But you did say that #3 was good. :)

"(P) And your list is .....???""

In the first post of the thread, I think. :)

"(P) No apology necessary. I like what I am seeing. Don't necessarily agree with what I read, but don't necessarily disagree either. Need to have time to digest the effects of conclusions reached by the authors."

Free thinkers are always welcome in this forum!

Peace.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #19 on:** June 05, 2009, 08:21:49 AM »

Rabbi Michael Skobak demonstrates that a Biblical consistent way to read Daniel 9 is that it says the messianic age can only come about AFTER the Termple is destroyed, as opposed to before, as is the Christian suggestion.

Author Topic: Principles of Biblical/Literary Interpretation. (Read 3584 times)