With the advent of the printing press and the protestant reformation in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Word of God became available to the common believer. Now, in the twenty first century, people all over the world, can read for themselves the scriptures in their own languages. Consider the Bible studies going on in any given country on any given evening, where people are encouraged to interact with the sacred scriptures. As encouraging as this may be, it may present a problem. Could discussions of what a scripture ‘means to me’ cloud out what the scripture originally meant? Is it even possible to know the author’s intent? Even if we could understand a first century text as its author intended, can we also grasp what it’s supposed to mean to us?
Answering these questions is the purpose of this essay. I begin by arguing that the Bible cannot be adequately understood independent of its historical context. I concede later that historical context alone however is insufficient, for the Bible is a living-breathing document as relevant to us today as it was the day it was scribed. I conclude we need both testimonies of God at work to fully appreciate how the Bible speaks to us.
Hermeneutics is the study of these questions and whether we can bridge the gap between these different contexts? The significance of each context is crucial for readers to have balanced perspective and balanced reading of historical texts. And context is important in hermeneutics because while the Bible was written ‘for us’ it wasn’t written ‘to us’ .
Corley, Lemke and Lovejoy (2002) agree with the importance of the two contexts defining theological hermeneutics as, the process of thinking about God, thinking after the event of revelation in the...
... middle of paper ...
...ical Hermeneutics: A treatise on interpretation of the old and new testaments. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zonderzan, 17.
Thiselton, A.C. (2005). Can the Bible mean whatever we want it to mean? Chester, U.K.: Chester Acadamic Press, 10-11.
Thiselton, A. C. (2009). Hermeneutics: an introduction. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. [Kindle edition] 306.
Thiselton, A. C. (1980). The two horizons: New Testament hermeneutics and philosophical description. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, xix.
Thomas, R. (2002). Evangelical hermeneutics: the new versus old. Kregel Academic.13
Todorov, T. (1986). “Reading as Construction,” in The Reader in the Text. 73
Wellek, R. (1978). The New Criticism: Pro and Contra. Critical Inquiry, 4 (4), 611.
Westphal, M. (2009). Whose Community? Which Interpretation?: Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church. Baker Academic. 107
According to David M. Carr, the history of Scriptural interpretation indicates that religious texts are popular candidates for reinterpretation and, as such, are spaces wherein the personal identity of the reader frequently inscribes itself at length:
The Bible is read and interpreted by many people all over the world. Regardless, no one knows the absolute truth behind scripture. Walter Brueggemann, professor of Old Testament, wrote “Biblical Authority” to help people understand what he describes as six different parts that make up the foundation to ones understanding of scripture. He defines these six features as being: inherency, interpretation, imagination, ideology, inspiration, and importance. As Brueggemann explains each individual part, it is easy to see that they are all interconnected because no one can practice one facet without involuntarily practicing at least one other part.
The Bible: The Old Testament. The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces. Ed. Sarah Lawall et al. Vol 1. 7th ed. New York: Norton, 1999. 47-97.
N.T Wright (2008) stated that “When we read the scriptures as Christians, we read it precisely as people of the new covenant and of the new creation” (p.281). In this statement, the author reveals a paradigm of scriptural interpretation that exists for him as a Christian, theologian, and profession and Bishop. When one surveys the entirety of modern Christendom, one finds a variety of methods and perspectives on biblical interpretation, and indeed on the how one defines the meaning in the parables of Jesus. Capon (2002) and Snodgrass (2008) offer differing perspectives on how one should approach the scriptures and how the true sense of meaning should be extracted. This paper will serve as a brief examination of the methodologies presented by these two authors. Let us begin, with an
Metzger, B. (1997). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. New York.
Harris, Stephen. Understanding The Bible. 6 ed. New York City: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, 2002. Print.
"EXPLORING THEOLOGY 1 & 2." EXPLORING THEOLOGY 1 2. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2014.
Collins, John J. A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007.
The New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha. Nashville: Abingdon Press, ©2003.
...pse." In Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, edited by W. Klaasen and G.F. Snyder, 23-37. New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1962.
Bromiley, Geoffrey William, Fredrich, Gerhard, Kittel, Gerhard. “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.” Struttgart, Germany. W. Kohlhammer Verlag. 1995. Print.
...s distributed in Theology 101 at the University of Notre Dame, Fremantle on 22 April 2008.
For centuries now Christians have claimed to possess the special revelation of an omnipotent, loving Deity who is sovereign over all of His creation. This special revelation is in written form and is what has come to be known as The Bible which consists of two books. The first book is the Hebrew Scriptures, written by prophets in a time that was before Christ, and the second book is the New Testament, which was written by Apostles and disciples of the risen Lord after His ascension. It is well documented that Christians in the context of the early first century were used to viewing a set of writings as being not only authoritative, but divinely inspired. The fact that there were certain books out in the public that were written by followers of Jesus and recognized as being just as authoritative as the Hebrew Scriptures was never under debate. The disagreement between some groups of Christians and Gnostics centered on which exact group of books were divinely inspired and which were not. The debate also took place over the way we can know for sure what God would have us include in a book of divinely inspired writings. This ultimately led to the formation of the Biblical canon in the next centuries. Some may ask, “Isn’t Jesus really the only thing that we can and should call God’s Word?” and “Isn’t the Bible just a man made collection of writings all centered on the same thing, Jesus Christ?” This paper summarizes some of the evidences for the Old and New Testament canon’s accuracy in choosing God breathed, authoritative writings and then reflects on the wide ranging
Is the language in the New Testament problematic for the modern world view? Rudolf Bultmann’s argument in the article, “The Task of Demythologizing,” in Philosophy and Faith: A Philosophy and Religion Reader, believes it is. He challenges the theologian to strip away the elements in the language of the mythical world image and the event of redemption, and then, suggests theology needs to examine the truths in the New Testament. Theology must discover whether the New Testament offers people a better understanding of themselves leading them to a genuine existential decision. Keeping in mind, the New Testament was written for humankind’s comprehension of the world view during the pre-scientific age, Bultmann stipulates theologians may want to
One of the major points stressed by Hodge in this essay is that the scriptures are infallible because they were written by the inspiration of God and the Holy Ghost. Hodge begins to describe the attri...