Thread: Kerygmania: Does Scripture Change with Time? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000959
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
The three lectionary readings of last Sunday prompted this question.They are: Joshua 24:1-2a, 14-25; Ephesians 5:21-33 and John 6:60-69. The particular verses that I question are:
Joshua 24:19
quote:
And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins
Ephesians 5:
quote:
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
John 6:56 & 6o
quote:
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
In a commentary preface it was stated regarding the Ephesians passage, "Note that Paul's primary concern is with its description of the relatonship between Christ and the church, a relationship which he [I]describes in the accepted marriage pattern of his day["/I] (italics added).
If we can accept this allowance for interpreting this passage, why not the passage of Joshua giving a fire and brimstone sermon to the Israelites? And maybe John was already trying a new interpretation of Christ's establishing Holy Communion since there were probably many other manifestations including the old charge of cannabalism and witchcraft in his time?
Does Scripture allow such adaptation to new times?
[ 19. November 2013, 00:50: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
Stonking good question, IB. I need some time to pull together thoughts on this, as it's an issue that crops up in my mind from time to time (usually to suffer the fate of a drowning sailor).
Just a quick question for initial thought: assuming that the text of the bible doesn't change (generally speaking - leave aside the issue of mistakes in manuscripts for now), I guess we are talking about changes in interpretive techniques and in the approaches humans take when they read the bible. Is this, then, more about whether the bible validates particular interpretive techniques over others?
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
My thoughts on this for starters. Two aspects to consider: synchrony (what holds things together) and diachrony (surviving the times).
Over the years I have had to think a fair bit about the relationship between the various parts of that collection of texts that we call the bible. It proves to be easier to deal with discrete chunks (or units) in isolation than it does to provide a systematic, coherent, 'Theology of Everything' (a ToE to rival the analogous search for a T(heory)oE in physics!). That's saying something, because analysing discrete chunks is a time-consuming, resource-intensive activity in itself. Ideally, a systematic, coherent biblical theology would take account of all the findings that come from analysing the units. That's such an undertaking that many a commentator has concluded that it cannot be done. The individual texts are just too diverse, they say, to warrant a unifying principle. We cannot, they reason, place Joshua side by side with Ephesians and hope to find common ground.
And yet ....
I for one cannot shake off the feeling (I think it's in the gut, but that might just be the Cola talking) that when one puts together a collection of works, whether the bible, the collection of Mozart's Piano Concertos, a community of people or even a single human being, one is facing something that is more than the sum of its parts. A new dynamic is in play – a new melody plays above the polyphony of the parts.
OK – that introduces the synchronic element. Now for the diachronic.
In addition to that elusive element that swims above the collection of the parts is the time factor. These texts – although written for specific purposes at a specific time – acquired a life of their own through generations of communities. This implies there is a timeless factor about them. Goodness knows how many other texts were penned and forgotten (the same principle applies to hymns and choruses – perhaps only 1% of all published at best survive two or more generations?). So we have a few timeless texts that have survived scrutiny. What, though do we mean by 'timeless'? After all, we don't have to look far to see that any one of these 'timeless' texts will have been the subject of many interpretations and applications, some of which are mutually exclusive. The text may survive unchanged through generations, but the history of its interpretation is polychromatic.
So, from synchronic and diachronic elements we end up with two chronic confusions. What warrant is there (i.e., how can we produce a public validation) for reading across the whole collection of texts, and what warrant is there for justifying our interpretations?
Some options:-
[1] Adopt an Aristotelian or Kantian style upstairs-downstairs dualism that places these issues above publicly rational investigation: “The Lord / Spirit told me that my interpretation was correct....”;
[2] Play introspection: “Religion is a private thing; this interpretation / way of doing things works for me...”;
[3] Celebrate diversity: “We should be happy that so many multi-varied interpretations can be taken from just the one text...”;
[4] Opt-out: “All that theology thing – that's for college folks. I'm a bear of little brain and the Lord chose the foolish things...”
[5] Post in Kerygmania.
I think – but I have no command from the Lord, as Paul would say – that it is justifiable to expect a publicly-available validation (a warrant) from an interpreter when said interpreter makes a public application from a biblical text. This goes especially for statements from the pulpit. Anyone who expects others to follow a lifestyle or to adopt a particular action or stance, based on a reading of a text, should be expected to justify their interpretation. That might then be a platform from which to explore the interpretive technique being used and whether it could be said to be valid.
If that is the case, then we would be justified in asking whether the commentary to the Ephesian passage in the OP is valid. If it is open to question / challenge, then we might not be able to conclude that the approach taken there could also be applied to Joshua (or John). After all, “new times” are not always the best ground for applying an interpretive technique on their own. I would suggest that we need both synchrony and diachrony in our approach, letting one balance the other, so that we are not blown around (and off course) by those short-lived gusts of contemporaneity.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Of course interpretations change over time. The whole Talmudic tradition assumes that Scripture isn't a dead letter, but rather something that each faith community, in its own time and place, engages with an eye to "hearing a word" for its own situation.
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
The vast majority of New Testament is about interpreting scripture (Old Testament) to make sense of Jesus.
The books of I and II Chronicles are adaptations of I and II Kings to reinterpret the History of Israel for a people in exile.
Scripture is always applied anew.....
Once the canon is formed however, can't make new scripture...so we just "interpret" it anew
[ 26. August 2009, 01:45: Message edited by: Seb ]
Posted by archangel0753 (# 14945) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Of course interpretations change over time.
And so does the way we read a particular text.
Whatever it meant to the first readers (let's leave the author out of it for now!), we can never read it the same way they did. We are simply (and complexly) different to them.
This isn't just about culture and context. Any text only yields 'meaning' as a product of the reader's engagement with it - and every reader is different. Within our own generation and culture there is likely to be much more consensus about meaning, but even so the meaning each reader discerns will be unique to them.
For me this doesn't equate to relativism - "it's true if it's true for me". One of the exciting parts of the dynamic as I see it is that Absolute Truth / God makes Itself available in such a distinctively personal way.
So, does Scripture change? Hmmmmm.... I would say that, rather than changing, it's different every time (oh dear, I think that's one of those paradox things ...).
Posted by archangel0753 (# 14945) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Seb:
Once the canon is formed however, can't make new scripture...so we just "interpret" it anew
And another thing ....
I'm not so sold on this idea of the Canon being closed. By whom?
And given the kind of horse-trading that went on at the early Councils to decide what was in and out, I'd rather sit lightly on the idea of Canon anyway.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by archangel0753:
And given the kind of horse-trading that went on at the early Councils to decide what was in and out, I'd rather sit lightly on the idea of Canon anyway.
Would you care to elaborate? I am aware that there were different lists at different times by different people on what was included in scripture. For that matter, flavors of Easter Orthodoxy have a couple of canons in their ranks, RC and many mainline Protestant churches have a different one, and more recent variants of Protestantism have yet another.
However, in none of these cases am I aware of "horse-trading" that went into their decisions. So please, dish...
--Tom Clune
[ 26. August 2009, 15:47: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posted by Spong (# 1518) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by archangel0753:
I'm not so sold on this idea of the Canon being closed. By whom?
And given the kind of horse-trading that went on at the early Councils to decide what was in and out, I'd rather sit lightly on the idea of Canon anyway.
The canon was not closed by the councils, they simply acknowledged what was already accepted. The only source I'm aware of for the view that it was all horse-trading is a book by an author who believes that the Priory of Sion was real rather than a rather wonderful surrealist prank...
FE Bruce, who was one of the last century's leading Biblical scholars says here that:
quote:
It is specially important to hear in mind that the fixing of the New Testament Canon was not the arbitrary work of a Church Council. When at last, in A.D. 393, a Church Council drew up a list of New Testament books, it simply confirmed the canonical recognition that was already well established as the general consensus of Christians.
By the back end of the second century, the main arguments were about Hebrews, Revelation, a few of the smaller epistles, and a book called the Shepherd of Hermas. All but the last made it into the canon; if you have ever read it you'll understand why it didn't make it in.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by archangel0753:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Of course interpretations change over time.
And so does the way we read a particular text.
Can you explain what the difference is you're seeing here? "The way we read a particular text" to me just means "our interpretation of the text".
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
By the back end of the second century, the main arguments were about Hebrews, Revelation, a few of the smaller epistles, and a book called the Shepherd of Hermas. All but the last made it into the canon; if you have ever read it you'll understand why it didn't make it in.
My recollection is that the Didache, first Clement, and the epistle of Barnabas were also contenders later than that. At least the first two would have been decent additions, to my way of thinking.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by archangel0753:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Of course interpretations change over time.
And so does the way we read a particular text.
Can you explain what the difference is you're seeing here? "The way we read a particular text" to me just means "our interpretation of the text".
I think he meant method or approach.
You can share a similar approach to someone in your day and age (i.e. allegorical interpretation in the middle ages or Historical criticism today) but still arrive at a different interpretation.
Posted by Spong (# 1518) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
My recollection is that the Didache, first Clement, and the epistle of Barnabas were also contenders later than that. At least the first two would have been decent additions, to my way of thinking.
When I was checking before I replied, Barnabas seemed to come up on the lists mostly as a book that was known but should not be treated as part of the canon, though people did quote from it approvingly. The Didache didn't seem to be mentioned much, though I agree with you about its value. I've never read 1 Clement, must go and look for it.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
I've never read 1 Clement, must go and look for it.
The best avaialble on-line source that I know about is the Early Christian Writings site. The Roberts-Donaldson translation is the most common one in my experience. Unfortunately, all of them are on the clunky side. If you read Greek, the original text is also there. FWIW
--Tom Clune
Posted by archangel0753 (# 14945) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by archangel0753:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Of course interpretations change over time.
And so does the way we read a particular text.
Can you explain what the difference is you're seeing here? "The way we read a particular text" to me just means "our interpretation of the text". [/QUOTE]I think he meant method or approach. [/QB][/QUOTE]
'Approach' in one of its senses would come close to what I mean. I'm talking about what we bring (as ourselves - more than our ideas, methods and learning)to the text when we engage with it.
This includes deep cultural assumptions about what a written text is. Is it squiggles on a page which the gifted can understand? Is it a logical 'code' where each word has a precise and fixed meaning which the educated can understand? Is it an assembly of symbols from which the reader derives meaning in a process of negotiation based on the reader's total life experience?
Some Christian exegesis falls between the second and third idea above. It makes the assumption that a Biblical text has a fixed meaning, and then asserts that we are helped to uncover that meaning by 'putting ourselves in the place of' the original writer or audience - their world view, their use of language and so on. This is open to the idea of different ways of 'reading a text', but it protects the changelessness of Scripture by presuming it to be true.
A different view would be that we are utterly removed from 1st century minds (some would argue that we are even more removed than we care to admit from the minds of our 21st century neighbours) and that even if would could access them, we could not un-be what we are. Each of us comes to Scripture in ways which are (often fundamentally) different and because of that we 'read' it in different ways. Inevitably, beautifully, those differing engagements derive different meaning. Scripture is dynamic and not static.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by archangel0753:
Whatever it meant to the first readers (let's leave the author out of it for now!), we can never read it the same way they did. We are simply (and complexly) different to them.
I think there may be a case supporting the argument that we are, in some profound ways, exactly the same as our predecessors. Human nature has not changed – only the tools we use have changed. Humans have a thirst to develop the tools to hand and epochs are defined by these technological improvements: humans moved from Stone Age to Bronze Age to Iron Age, and so on.
While we (speaking of humans generally) have proved ourselves to be handy at developing handiwork that changes our ways of working, our ways of living have been more static. The texts that have have survived down the ages, copied by scribe after scribe and revered by communities, are those that always relevant to all times because they speak to (or about) human nature. We can read these texts (including the bible) and recognise this trait. The texts 'speak' to us because they 'spoke' to our ancestors on the subjects that we have in common.
It is this similarity we have with our predecessors that forms the background to the static nature of texts through time (that diachronic aspect I mentioned earlier). Not only do they not change materially (unless a scribe makes change while copying), they have a core of meaning that does not change either.
Now it's true that societies have ways of living that fall within a framework that is not narrow; some societies are more tolerant than others. This, however, is a trait that existed at the time the biblical texts were written. E.g., Babylon was more tolerant than its Assyrian neighbour. Despite this, there have been – and still are today – instances of societies that change within the framework of living to become less tolerant than they were.
What I'm getting as is that it would be a fallacy to confuse 'ways of working' with 'ways of living.' The two are not the same. Equally, it would be a fallacy to assume that we (humans generally) today are more tolerant than our ancestors. There always have been ebbs and flows. Human nature remains the constant over time.
This impacts on interpretation. I think we can read a text in the same way an original audience read (or heard) it. Perhaps not every nuance, but sufficient to be able to stand with them in a crowd, wearing their shoes. That's because we identify with them on matters pertaining to human nature. We might apply the significance of the text in a different manner, but their meaning can be available to us.
What do you think?
(P.S. I managed to leave the author out of it so far!)
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Of course interpretations change over time.
quote:
Originally posted by Seb:
Scripture is always applied anew.....
Given this (which must be right), is there a controlling factor over the need to apply interpretations to specific local situations? How, for example, do we know that a particular interpretation is correct and not an off-shoot down a blind alley, or even into a more potentially dangerous dark alley? This is the question that has kept me pacing the floor at nights! How do we justify (provide warrant, validate) an interpretation and application?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
This impacts on interpretation. I think we can read a text in the same way an original audience read (or heard) it. Perhaps not every nuance, but sufficient to be able to stand with them in a crowd, wearing their shoes. That's because we identify with them on matters pertaining to human nature. We might apply the significance of the text in a different manner, but their meaning can be available to us.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
As ever Nigel - this is spot on.
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
We might apply the significance of the text in a different manner, but their meaning can be available to us.
Is this Paul Ricouer?
I think you're right about the human nature bit. But cultural norms do change and these are often crucial for understanding.....
In terms of getting the "correct" interpretation....its been done differently thru time.
Before the Reformation, when in doubt, apply to the Rule of Faith and the Catholic Fathers.
During it was the Spirit. But they soon figured out even that wasn't working cos everyone interpreted differently and (shock horror!) that can't be right (tho I think it can if truth is not ONE)
In the late 18th Century you start getting the rise of Historical Criticism.
Historical Criticism cannot tell you its
significance as you said, but it can provide a area of possible meanings. It can tell us more what something cannot mean. So it becomes a culling tool in a way.
If I've got Ricouer right ( no doubt spelling his name wrong) , the significant of something is only applied once the meaning is interpreted for the present context.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Seb:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
We might apply the significance of the text in a different manner, but their meaning can be available to us.
Is this Paul Ricouer?
The 'meaning / significance' distinction was popularised (gained notoriety, for some!) by E. D. Hirsch, Jnr., in his Validity in Interpretation (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1967). He outlines his understanding of the distinction on p.8:
quote:
It is not the meaning of the text which changes, but its significance to the author. This distinction is too often ignored. Meaning is that which is represented by a text; it is what the author meant by his use of a particular sign sequence; it is what the signs represent. Significance, on the other hand, names a relationship between that meaning and a person, or a conception, or a situation, or indeed anything imaginable.
For Hirsch, the meaning is fixed as what the author intended to mean when s/he originally wrote or spoke to the audience. He argues that there is, thus, only ever one meaning in a text and that this equates to the author's original intention.
This is a useful tool, I think, to have to hand when it comes to defining what we mean by "different interpretations."
Ricoeur emphasised another important distinction: between sense and reference. The sense is the structure of the text, the "what" of the fixed discourse; reference is the "about what" of the text - what it refers to in the outer world. We move from sense to reference when we interpret a text.
quote:
Originally posted by Seb:
...cultural norms do change...
I remember a discussion starting about this point - also raised by archangel0753 above - a while ago: to what extent cultural norms have changed over time. Do we actually have radically different norms now - the kind that so severely skew our readings of a biblical text? It would be interesting to explore the possibility that we are still firmly in touch with our forebears, though accepting that we need to shed Nikes if we are to put on their sandals...
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
This impacts on interpretation. I think we can read a text in the same way an original audience read (or heard) it. Perhaps not every nuance, but sufficient to be able to stand with them in a crowd, wearing their shoes. That's because we identify with them on matters pertaining to human nature. We might apply the significance of the text in a different manner, but their meaning can be available to us.
As ever Nigel - this is spot on.
That's what we were taught/told to do in study/discussion -
1. What was the original meaning/understanding?
2. What is the meaning/understanding now?
3. What do you individually understand and what does it mean to your life and behaviour?
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I would have to disagree with Nigel.
We don't speak the original languages (which are essentially dead languages anyway) and words and phrases in different languages have shades of meaning and weight that are almost impossible to convey, particularly over a span of 2000-3500 years. We are also not ancient, nomadic or subsistence agriculture-based Middle Easterners. They had a completely different culture and worldview than we do and that evolved over the span of Scripture anyway.
Most of us have never attempted to learn a second language to native fluency, nor have many of us been dropped into a completely different culture (like living in the highlands of New Guinea for a while) and been forced to understand and live as they do, so few of us understand how big the gulf is that exists here.
I think we can get a literal meaning out of Scripture and a little insight into how they lived but I don't believe we can understand how Scripture would have been understood and received by someone who lived in that time, and am not even convinced that this is what we should be aiming for anyway.
[ 29. August 2009, 15:16: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Sorry edit window closed before I finished my thought.
The one thing I believe that Muslims and Jews do correctly is that they force their adherents to study Scripture in the original language instead of relying on translations. But even that is incomplete because it is impossible for us to read something, even in another language, without carrying our culture and worldview into it.
But I think those who are least able to understand Scripture as its original readers would, are English speaking people who are part of the world's dominant Anglo-American culture. We are the group of people who are least aware of how big cultural, worldview and linguistic gaps can be between different people.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
You've latched onto exactly the sort of issues that have held me captive for a number of years, ToujoursDan! I've plodded through the eminent thoughts of assorted camps on all this, mainly coming at it from the linguistic and literary angle, from the Analytics (Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Austin et al), through the Phenomenologists (Husserl, Heidegger, etc.), the Existentialists (Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Sartre, Popper...), the Structuralists (Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Lacan, Barthes...), the Aesthetes (Dilthey, Gadamer, Habermas, Hirsch, Ricoeur...), the Post-Structuralists (Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard...), and have pretty much concluded that there is more that links us to the past than that divides us.
I certainly agree that is not an easy step to stand in the sandals of our predecessors in the ancient near east. On the face of it there would appear to be – as some 20th century interpreters and philosophers argued – a rather large ditch between us and the past and that the distance of time and place imposes an insurmountable barrier to knowing the past. We are limited to reading out of a text what our current prejudices read in.
However, I am rather more optimistic about things. I think some important insights into not just literature, but also the human process of thinking, have come out of the intense debates of the last century. Here are some for consideration; it would be useful to know what people think about this:
[1] Communication (including via language) is a human operation and works within definable parameters. We (humans) are hard-wired to express imports that are universal (because humans are universal). The fact that language is a structured phenomenon and can be analysed means that communication is not thwarted merely because the mode of expression (dialect, idiolect, etc.) varies across the world and time. It is, therefore, possible to understand another's language and communication. Language is a tool and thus develops over time; communication is a behaviour and is thus constant over time. The two should not be confused.
[2] Humanity behaves in much the same way through time and space. Our tools have developed (we wear Nike's rather than sandals), but our condition remains the same. Essentially we have the same meta-world-view as our ancestors. The way of living is the same, if the way of working has been altered by advances in technology.
[3] We have an unbroken link to the past (i.e., there is no great ditch in the way) by virtue of what Gadamer called “effective history,” a process of tradition, in which past and present are constantly fused. We can - despite being dominant Anglo-Americans! - work towards a fusion of the horizons we live in with those of the past.
[4] Much confusion has arisen over the past hundred years or so on this as a result of failing to distinguish between the constants in the human tradition and the specific applications, or effects, that a communication has over time. There is a difference between locally-affected ways of working (impacted by a specific language and set of tools) and the universal human traits. It may be daunting to find oneself parachuted into another 'culture', but studies from anthropologists who have engaged in this activity show that once the language is learned, so that communication takes place (and once the traveller gets used to the different tools), he or she suddenly finds a great swathe of common ground with the hosts.
So I think we can get to the past. We do benefit from the donkey work of others who have ploughed the furrow before us and provided us with analyses, translations, background material and so on, but I'd argue that the mere facts of language differences, geographical distance, or differences in the 'things-we-have-to-hand' are not enough to prevent us from understanding the past more than sufficiently for our purposes.
That last clause is important, I think, because it links to another related topic – the motivation readers have for reading the bible. What are we reading for? There's usually an end, a purpose, in front of our reading, and this needs recognising before we can answer the question. It affects the angle of approach to the text, which, in turn, impacts on this discussion about Scripture permitting adaptation of readings down the years.
Oh – and about the author's intention (that poor old author needs bringing in at some point!) - just quickly here to say that this aspect pertains to the question of validity. It is crucial, it seems to me (until something better comes along) to have this as a check on interpretations, if we are to avoid mutually incompatible interpretations, or preaching/writings that are not Christian.
There's so much more that could be said...
Any thoughts?
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
1) While I agree with this statement on the most very basic level, it becomes meaningless when approaching a series of documents as complex with the Bible with the goal of teasing precise meanings and directives from it.
The Bible is an incredibly nuanced and complex work and the key subtleties go far beyond what you are inferring. On the most basic linguistic level, contains a lot of slang and idiom. There are syntax and structural subtexts that only a native speaker can understand (just like in any language). The Bible has narrative, poetry, law, parable, myth and other genres, which are hard to discern for a non-native speaker (and we in the church still can't agree on). And much of Scripture is like the TV show "Jeopardy" where we have an answer but don't know what the question is and cannot gather all the information needed to accurately pose the question.
I can go on and on about the complexities involved here but again, this is hard to convey to someone who hasn't attempted to learn a language to native level fluency or tried to embrace another culture to native level. I tried doing this with modern Quebecois French, which is fairly similar to English, and was amazed at the complexity involved and how many words had shades of meaning that didn't carry over into English (and vice versa). I can't imagine that a modern person will ever be able to do this with ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. (And I note the ones who have never tried tend to learn another language to native level fluency express the most confidence that these differences aren't important.)
2) Again, I agree with this on the most basic level; disagree that this is much help when it comes to deriving specific meanings out of Scripture. If you're going to argue that Scripture's message is "love thy neighbour" or "don't worship other gods", then that's fine. If you are going to try to develop an ethic around divorce or homosexuality with an agreement on all the background cultural and rhetorical subtexts involved, no way.
3) I couldn't emphatically disagree with this more. We do not have an unbroken link with pre-modern Hebrews. All the information modern people have comes from other contemporary writings of the period or archaeological digs. Given that we are dealing with a mostly non-literate culture where people speak languages which no longer exist or have evolved, and were in religious (cultic) and social milieus that no longer exist, where those who were literate only represented a small fraction of the population (the elite) and conveyed their specific worldview, views and values, we only have the tip of an iceberg.
We don't know what the average seafarer spent his time thinking about at the time of Paul's letter to the Corinhtians and how that would have impacted what he thought when he first heard the letter because we really don't know much about the day-to-day life of Corinth or Rome, what their rumour mill was talking about, what their cult-worshipping neighbours and family members concerns where or what economic and political concerns were, etc.
I am 42 years old and am getting old enough to read books on world history that discuss periods of time I lived through. But I know they are only cutting the surface and missing all kinds of important aspects of living through that time.
4) Again, "yes" on a most basic and superficial level, but "no" when you scratch the surface. There haven't been many cases when someone has been able to truly break through a cultural barrier and actually think and live like someone in another culture to a native level. There may be basic common ground, but again, what we expect far more out of Scripture than this.
So again, I would have to disagree. And again, I don't trust Anglo-American people to fully understand a linguistic and culture gap because it isn't something we are generally forced to bridge (with few exceptions). I think that there is a reason modern "Scripture only" literalistic conservative evangelicalism developed and was exported from the Anglo-American world and this is it. Unfortunately those in the modern church who preach the word, write and pass resolutions and formulate doctrine are tend to be the poorest equipped to do so.
[ 29. August 2009, 18:27: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Sorry. My dyslexia strikes again and there are few typos in there. If anything is unclear, ask me to clarify.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
I think you see the process as being far too complicated, ToujoursDan. A couple of point occurred to me to begin with:-
[1] I sense from your posts that your target is individual human beings (Christian or otherwise). I agree with you that an individual on his or her own would indeed find it a hard slog to pull together all the relevant background material needed to imagine being a native speaker, thinker and actor of the ancient near east. The point is that a single individual does not have to. We act in a community, where specialists in assorted fields do their stuff so that commentators can commentate and translators can translate. The single individual, who has not the resource available to do all that, can find enough material in all that output to imagine enough to understand.
[2] I don't believe that we need to be 'born again' as an 8th century BC Hebrew resident of Jerusalem before we can understand a communication from that time and place. I think you may be setting the bar way too high when it comes to communication. If biblical interpretation (or interpretation of any ancient text, for that matter) requires one to become a native speaker, thinker and actor of Hebrew, knowing exactly how it is to be someone else, then the objective would be very difficult to achieve. The thing is, though, that we – and readers of any text – do not need to become someone else in order to gain understanding of a text sufficient for our purposes, the point I made in my last post. We can communicate.
It might be the case, as you suggest, that Anglo-Americans find it harder to interpret the bible. I'm not too sure, because there are some very good Anglo-American translators at the UN and some pretty good ones doing theology, too! I suspect it's more a case that many individuals in any country do not involve themselves in learning another language, some become reasonably proficient (they get by) and a few excel.
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are like any other system of communication. They reflect human users. Yes, they will have nuances, shades of meaning, double-entendres, hyperbole, and so on. But so does English. So do other human languages, because humans are hard-wired to communicate in those modes and always have been. I would be rather worried if the texts I read in the bible did not reflect human communication, because then it would mean we were up against something alien to humanity.
Again, this is about the difference between language and communication. I think you are concerned about the differences in language – understandably enough – but I have been impressed by the writings on communication theory in the past few decades and it is this that brings me to conclude that we are, indeed, much closer to our ancestors that we used to think. The points you make about cultic and social milieus that no longer exist apply only to tools (the things in the world at hand) – not to life (ethics, lifestyles...). I do not have to travel far in London before I can see tribal milieus; I can see ways of living akin to first century Palestine just by watching film clips from Afghanistan. It is not such a hard thing to find life examples that reflect human traits and manners of communication that bring us closer to the earlier period. In biblical research we have material from professionals who have done much more than watch from afar.
What I am suggesting is that we turn the 'surface scratching' on its head. Rather than say that we have only a veneer of similarity with our forebears but that deep down we are fundamentally different, I say that the opposite is true: fundamentally we are the same as our forebears, our differences are only skin deep. May I suggest that deep down the average 1st century AD seafarer thought about the same fundamental things we do. He had much in common with the man on the Clapham omnibus!
Much depends here, I think, on that sufficient for our purposes line. We read with an end in view. Different readers may have different aims, but the text remains the same. The text is, in fact, purely secondary to the aim we have; it is a means to an end. Would you say that it is the case that a Christian includes as one of her aims learning Greek to native level fluency? Why would she want to? She does not need to know every shade of meaning in every word in order to understand a communication. I seriously doubt that a card-carrying, dyed-in-the-wool, first century native Greek speaker knew every shade of meaning in a Greek word, any more than a native of London or New York knows everything there is to know about English. I think it is a fallacy to believe that one needs to be a native before one can understand the meaning of a native communication.
Perhaps I should define 'meaning' in the present context as I understand it, in case we are on different tracks. I would say that the task of interpretation (I'm trying to avoid the 'hermeneutics' word!) is the identification of the purpose a writer (or speaker) had when s/he used the words s/he did in the way s/he used them. This is often equated to 'authorial intention.' It is not trying to get into the skin of the author, attempting to feel his or her psychology at any given point. It is about recognising that communication is an action – performed in the presentation of the text.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I will continue to disagree for the reasons I have given. I think on a superficial level we can discern basic meanings from Scripture. Where you fall apart is that you are trying to equate communication across living languages and cultures, where are people of that other language/culture are still alive and can give corrective feedback, with communication with a language and culture that died out/evolved thousands of years ago, where there is no corrective feedback, and with which we only have an incomplete picture from other writings of the period.
I also point to Exhibit A which the fact that we have thousands of denominations and sub-groups within denominations of educated people who all make the same claims you have, yet come to entirely different readings/interpretations and conclusions about what they are reading. The claims and the reality are different and I can't ignore that.
So I stick to my conclusion. By just surveying the religious scene as it is, I can't escape the belief that we can't fully understand Scripture. We can derive certain basic meanings from it, but when you get into in-depth texual study and need to draw on the nuances of a dead culture, world view and language, it falls apart.
While I respect your opinion I think it is rather superficial when it comes to the complexity of inter-cultural communication, particularly with a dead culture, and ignores the very real fact that modern evangelical Christianity is full of intelligent and faithful people, but is hardly of one mind on nearly any interpretation and application of nearly any passage of Scripture. Modern evangelical Christianity takes the most modern and western approach to Biblical interpretation, something that becomes very clear when dialoguing with educated Jews for example.
We will have to agree to disagree at this point, I suppose.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Where you fall apart is that you are trying to equate communication across living languages and cultures ... with communication with a language and culture that died out/evolved thousands of years ago...
The principle applies to all communication, whether past or present. Yes, it's always nice to have an author around to confirm or reject interpretations of a work, but so long as a communication adheres to the rules for effective communication (coherence, cohesion, import, and so on), it is possible to get to the meaning. As I say, language is not the same as communication – it is only a vehicle of communication, but a vehicle constrained by communicative human beings. In regard to the biblical texts, you say that the languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) have evolved. That's true, but note that evolution required links. We are quite fortunate, really, in that the texts we are delaying with have been the subject of unbroken commentary over time. We are not coming to an alien language. But even if we were, e.g., to Assyrian or Babylonian, these languages have always been part of wider families of languages so that it has always been possible to track denotations of words both synchronically and diachronically.
The proof is in the pudding of this: comparative philology has been around for over 100 years and has produced networks of linguistic comparisons across the ancient near east, products that continue to inform textual critics and translators. We've even seen the process in use here on the Ship!
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I also point to Exhibit A which the fact that we have thousands of denominations and sub-groups within denominations of educated people who all make the same claims you have, yet come to entirely different readings/interpretations and conclusions about what they are reading. The claims and the reality are different and I can't ignore that.
What reasons are there for the existence of denominations? I suggest here that this has more to do with theology and politics, and not communicative theory! This is where the synchronic aspect of the biblical texts come into play (referred to in my second post) – how we treat the complete box of texts we call the canon – how does that communicate? I'm struggling to think of a denomination that has formed as a result of a lack of agreement over the interpretation of a single text; actually isn't it more likely the case that it is the very failure to seek the meaning of texts that leads to a differences in understanding? We have some good examples in recent years of scholars who have latched onto the need to pay attention to the meta-narratives that surround communication – investigating background, genre, co-text and context – in order to become part of the crowd listening to the author (the New Perspective has demonstrated the mechanics of doing this).
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...the very real fact that modern evangelical Christianity is full of intelligent and faithful people, but is hardly of one mind on nearly any interpretation and application of nearly any passage of Scripture.
I agree that application – the significances we draw from texts for today – will vary from place to place. These are location and context specific things. I also agree that interpretive methods are the subject of debate. Interpretive approaches have been varied down the years. Both these, however, are different things to the question of there being a meaning in a text that is publicly accessible, not only in principle but also in practice. If we had time I would be happy to set out the approach I think works best with regard to authorial intention and how that could work to cope with the persistent question of validity (how would I know that my interpretation is not off the wall?). Still, I am conscious that I have drifted off the OP topic somewhat!
I most certainly agree with you that we have a plurality of interpretations out there on some of the biblical texts – some of which are mutually incompatible – even, as you say, from people coming from the same background. That is not an excuse on its own, I would say, to wander off and form a new church. It would be the starting point for discussion about the relevant purpose in reading and the interpretive method used. It could also be a good opportunity to open up issues of presuppositions and how they play out in our pre-judgements about texts. This, it seems to me, was the sort of thing Jesus was recorded as doing when he sought to wrestle the Jewish Scriptures back from the interpreters of his day.
This has all been useful for me, at least, in pulling together ideas and thoughts on the issue: How does one seek to validate a particular understanding of a biblical text?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I'm struggling to think of a denomination that has formed as a result of a lack of agreement over the interpretation of a single text
I think you could argue (perhaps not successfully?) that Christian Science is a direct result of Mary Baker Eddy misinterpreting the line, "Which one of you convinceth me of sin?" From this she drew her conclusion that there was no such thing as sin, misreading the Elizabethan "convince" to be the same as the modern "convince" rather than the modern "convict" as it ought to have been read. From her conviction that there was no such thing as sin, her entire metaphysic follows.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think you could argue (perhaps not successfully?) that Christian Science is a direct result of Mary Baker Eddy misinterpreting the line, "Which one of you convinceth me of sin?"
Thanks mousethief - yes, I'm not sure if the resulting movement could continue to rely on the translation of that line to justify its existence today. A failure on Mrs. Eddy's part (or the translation she relied on) to validate that reading by reference to authorial intention!
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
The principle applies to all communication, whether past or present.
I couldn't disagree more. Even in our culture different subgroups use language differently and the meanings can vary quite a bit.
When "That's bad" said with a certain intonation in our language can mean "That's a very good thing" in certain African American subcultures and "It is indeed bad" in mainstream culture, "It's cool" can mean "That's good" as opposed to "It's of a lower temperature" you get a small sense of the complexity you are dealing with. At least in our day and time widespread use of written language and recordings keep track of these changes, but this wasn't true in the past.
Without correction from native speakers all kinds of erroneous conclusions could be drawn if both are written down and read 2,000 years from now and they are.
quote:
That's true, but note that evolution required links. We are quite fortunate, really, in that the texts we are delaying with have been the subject of unbroken commentary over time.
Those links may exist, but we don't have access to all of them and would be applying our worldview/culture/etc. onto them.
And as you know, the Biblical commentary has varied quite a bit over 2000 years. Often the commentators throughout Christian history have used the same text to condemn or condone contradictory things. There also seems to have been a wholesale change in Biblical commentary after the Roman empire fell, the pagans were vanquished, Europe was Christianized and pagans became those far off people, instead of brothers, sisters and parents.
quote:
We are not coming to an alien language. But even if we were, e.g., to Assyrian or Babylonian, these languages have always been part of wider families of languages so that it has always been possible to track denotations of words both synchronically and diachronically.
Again, think of how diverse English is even in our own time. Think about how often slang and idiom meanings have changed and faded in and out in spans of individual years, much less decades or centuries. Think of how often the same phrase can have completely opposite meanings depending on the time and subculture. It was probably no different 2,000 years ago.
We have good guesses but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are accurate. Again, on the most basic level I agree with everything you are saying. When you are looking for a clear answer on a complex issue (like hot button issues like gender equality in the clergy, sexuality or divorce) no way.
I don't believe we have all the links and that again, we are dealing with a mostly illiterate culture where written language was confined to a small subculture of educated and elites.
quote:
The proof is in the pudding of this: comparative philology has been around for over 100 years and has produced networks of linguistic comparisons across the ancient near east, products that continue to inform textual critics and translators. We've even seen the process in use here on the Ship!
But again, these are 20th-21st Century people making their best guesses as to what ancient/people said, meant or heard based on very very sparse bit of text also recovered from another time. Again, this is where I think you and I are going to continue to disagree.
quote:
What reasons are there for the existence of denominations? I suggest here that this has more to do with theology and politics, and not communicative theory!
And I am saying that communicative theory and the breakdown is what often drives the theology and politics here at least where groups are concerned.
quote:
This is where the synchronic aspect of the biblical texts come into play (referred to in my second post) – how we treat the complete box of texts we call the canon – how does that communicate? I'm struggling to think of a denomination that has formed as a result of a lack of agreement over the interpretation of a single text;
Numerous American denominations have been formed over the interpretation of texts.
quote:
actually isn't it more likely the case that it is the very failure to seek the meaning of texts that leads to a differences in understanding?
This is where I think you were reaching for the old evangelical cop out. Those "other" people are failing to accurately seek the meaning of texts. We blame people for these failures instead of looking at the assumptions that are being made and the process itself. "They" are allowing personal agendae or politics to interfere with correct interpretation of Scripture or (and I am not saying you have said this but I hear it often enough) those other people don't love God/are faithful or obedient enough to come to the correct interpretation.
This is why I gave up on evangelicalism in the first place. I think this "failure" charge is wrong and that we, as 21th Century people cannot arrive at the correct meaning of a text (as a 1st Century believer would hear them) for all the reasons I have given, and that we shouldn't even try. We are not 1st Century people. We need to stop attempting to be so and listen to the Word in our culture, time and place.
quote:
We have some good examples in recent years of scholars who have latched onto the need to pay attention to the meta-narratives that surround communication – investigating background, genre, co-text and context – in order to become part of the crowd listening to the author (the New Perspective has demonstrated the mechanics of doing this).
But again, I am saying that we don't have all the meta-narratives of a specific time and place available and that meta-narrative themselves are very complex, diverse based on things like class, geography, etc., and always changing even in our day and time. Most of the meta-narratives that existed in the 1500BC to 100AD when the Biblical writers wrote have in fact have been lost in the sands of history.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Even in our culture different subgroups use language differently and the meanings can vary quite a bit.
When "That's bad" said with a certain intonation in our language can mean "That's a very good thing" in certain African American subcultures...
But ToujoursDan this is still to confuse two very important and separate things. Firstly the distinction between language and communication. The former is a tool (and tools develop over time), the latter is a human trait. I know you are arguing that there is no distinction between the two, but cognitive science and linguistic theory is against you here. Secondly, oral and written communication are two different genres. So long as the rules of effective communication apply - e.g. with biblical texts, that an author wishes to affect his (assuming a 'his') audience so as to effect change in them, and so communicates using coherent and cohesive strings of text, then we have no warrant to assume that he has adopted slang. Even if there is scope for rhetorical use, the context and co-text provide clues to that. We even have Greek texts from Aristotle available to help us identify rhetoric. His descriptions are very similar to the use of rhetoric today - communication stays the same!
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Those links may exist, but we don't have access to all of them and would be applying our worldview/culture/etc. onto them.
We would indeed if we didn't as part of the process have an awareness that we had presuppositions/worldviews. It was one of the strong points of Gadamer's work last century that he demonstrated (a) that awareness of our starting points is a crucial step to gaining a fusion of our horizon of understanding with that of the past; and (b) that we can so fuse because worldviews are constrained by our human traditions and limitations (we are finite beings, so our worldviews have limited scope).
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Again, think of how diverse English is even in our own time. Think about how often slang and idiom meanings have changed and faded in and out in spans of individual years...
I emphasis here again the difference between language and human communication. I'm gunning for a different target.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
When you are looking for a clear answer on a complex issue (like hot button issues like gender equality in the clergy, sexuality or divorce) no way.
I think you are referring here again to application. I see no reason why in principle - and indeed in practice - it is not possible to establish what an author meant on these issues from ancient texts. That is, of course, a different issue to how we then apply those texts to any given situation today. Establishing the meaning is, I would argue, only the first step. A crucial one, though, if we are to find a way of validating readings and interpretations.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...we are dealing with a mostly illiterate culture where written language was confined to a small subculture of educated and elites.
I have to say, though, that this view dumbs down the ability of other people to communicate effectively. Written language is just one tool among many. Presumably the non-educated and plebeian could converse about food, sex and community living just as effectively as a graduate from Pythagoras' gymnasium? Was Jesus addressing only the elite? His language use suggests an easy familiarity with the poorer elements of society.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...I think you were reaching for the old evangelical cop out.
I don't know if this is an evangelical trait - the processes I have taken have been gleaned from a clutch of international thinkers on matters linguistic and anthropologic, few of whom, I think, are even Christian.
Allegations of misinterpretation are not peculiar to evangelicalism, though I agree that it must be more prevalent among those who have a vested interest in the outcome of biblical interpretation. I'd be wary, though, about assuming that evangelicals are all singing from the same interpretive hymnsheet. The arguments in favour of a process to identify authorial intention come from outside Christianity. At least, that's where I got them from - I assume they drifted into the seminary and pulpit later. In fact, if James Barr's Semantics of Biblical Language (1961) was the gong sounding the start of interest in modern linguistics in Christianity (as is often alleged), he was drawing on academic work already embedded in the academy.
OK - where are we on this? Obviously I see a distinction between language and communication that you don't agree with. I have come to conclude that it is possible in principle and with hard work in practice to identify what an author was communicating when s/he did what s/he did using the language s/he did in the way s/he did, whereas you do not. Obviously, I think you set the bar to high; I am content that we can arrive at a reading that is sufficient to meet our aims.
I note your concern that we should not even try to get at the author's meaning. I don't know whether that colours the concerns you have about the process; pragmatically speaking I was driven to investigate the whole question of authorial intention because of the wider question: how do I (or the bloke in the pulpit or on God TV!) justify / validate the interpretation I have just arrived at / heard?
I question what I hear. I guess the question applies to all interpreters. E.g., what grounds would you be able to use to justify / validate an interpretation you hear of a text (bible or otherwise), when you let it speak as the Word to a given group?
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
Thanks to all for the interesting and informative discussion of my OP. I particularly commend Jourjousdan and Nigel for their back and forth.
However, I have not seen addressed the question I was posing was not so much in interpretation, meaning or sense of a passage but in the practice that says that it's all right to ingore a particular passage because "that's what was believed in those times".
Certainly we can go along with this in the case of passages about genocide or violent child rearing, but what about John's quoting (he says) the words of Jesus, "this is my body" and "this is my blood"? Would someone be able to say, Oh, John was trying to downplay the sacrilization (and misinterpretation) of the Eucharist? Because he saw people turning the ceremony into witchcraft and cannibalism when Jesus only meant it to be a reminder of his teaching?
Perhaps this is too far to go in "modernization" but I think it could be possible?
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
...the practice that says that it's all right to ignore a particular passage because "that's what was believed in those times".
Perhaps it won't come as a surprise if my hat in this ring fights the corner that says it is not right simply to ignore any passage - even those that deal with mass killings and so on, if by ignore one means cut out, pay no attention to, set aside without thinking about.
I have a few reasons for thinking a reader should pay attention to all passages:-
[1] For better or worse, these passages have been ring fenced for the use of a particular community known as the People of God (Judaism and Christianity). The passages have been retained by generation after generation and transmitted carefully to a vehicle to affect that People. We have to take account of that.
[2] It would not honest to the text to ignore certain passages. Not even literary critics would presume to ignore parts of a text they were analysing simply on the grounds that they did not like what they found there. The text is as the text does...
[3] We run the risk of building God in our own image if we reflect only on those passages that reflect our own prejudices. Ironically, the selection (in or out) of passages on the basis of an alleged cultural bias runs counter to the very argument that people "in those time" were culturally bound. It's very difficult to justify - provide validity for - the idea that we, somehow, today are more enlightened that others.
For me, it pays to pay attention to the whole cake, rather than slicing out for enjoyment the bits with the cherries in and leaving the rest behind. The more crucial question, it seems to me, is what one does with the whole once it has been analysed - how does one apply it? Perhaps one could at that point ignore passages one finds difficult to cope with, if by 'ignore' here one admits "I am ignorant of its application." At least one will have been brave enough to grapple with it to begin with and will have faced up to the difficult questions.
Back to the John passage -
I hadn't come across the idea before that John might have been reacting to a pagan magic ritual within the early Christian community. Do you know what the background to that might be? Are there instances of this happening that we know of?
The link between Jesus and food (including bread) is quite prominent throughout John's gospel. I get the impression that John was presenting Jesus as "one who came from God" - just as the manna was provided by God to the Israelites in the wilderness years. If that is John's intention and theme, then wouldn't it be consistent to read the references to bread (or food) in John 6 as a metaphor for accepting and taking on the Messiah (Christ) as God's anointed? In this way, John could be reacting to a range of issues - not necessarily ritualistic: perhaps simply advocating the importance of accepting the validity of Jesus, or promoting Jesus' teachings over and above the then current Jewish interpretations of Law? That seems to be along the lines you suggest (but without necessarily the need for cannibalism as being John's target).
Nigel
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
To sum up my points:
I am saying is that communication is done through language which consists of symbols conveyed through oral, written and non verbal means.
The use and reception of these symbols depends on many factors - culture, worldview, geographical location, meta-narrative, class, ethnicity, etc.
Outsiders (those who not of that culture, language or time) will always have an incomplete understanding of how these symbols were used. This becomes an even bigger problem when one is dealing with an ancient, mostly non-liberate culture where written language had far less utility than today. Relying on texts from other authors of the period can assist, but not fully bridge this gap.
Everyone has a vested interest in particular interpretations of Scripture. It is impossible for people and even communities to approach, interpret and use the Bible without some kind of bias. There are no unbiased people. We are all products of our time, culture and worldview and cannot fully escape it.
The Bible is a unique series of documents because of its living role in the church today. We demand a level of intimacy with the Bible that we do not demand from Plato or Aristotle's works.
I am skeptical of how the Bible is interpreted and used in "Scripture only" communities. I believe that they are the least equipped to understand and respect the culture and time gap between the original writers and hearers of Scripture and ourselves.
I set the bar as high as I do because of the role of the Bible in regulating the thoughts, beliefs and actions of individuals and communities (and those outside of it, to a lesser degree.) The potential for harm is much greater.
I believe it is a mistake for us to attempt to put ourselves in the shoes of 1st Century people and attempt to hear and apply Scripture the way they did. We don't have the tools to do this adequately in any case.
Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on
:
ToujoursDan, I think I understand what you wrote, but I don't quite understand where you are going with it. Are you proposing that because of the points that you set out above, we shouldn't even try to understand what the message meant when it was written?
While I understand that I couldn't possibly know everything that you have in mind when you wrote your posts, I think there is a degree of understanding achieved between you and the readers of this thread, myself included even though I live across the pond and English is not my first language. Doesn't that in itself demonstrate that communication is possible between peoples who are strangers to each other's background and culture? I don't think for one moment that any of us are saying that we know everything about the Biblical background NOW, but the point that I am taking from NigelM is that perhaps it is possible to find a way through using various disciplines pulled together in order to understand the principles of the Biblical teachings involved and secondly, we must be able to justify our own interpretations of the text.
Given that one of my pet hates is people quoting scripture at me completely devoid of its context, it is no surprise that I am in favour of validating one’s interpretation of a text. I am curious; if you don’t think we could have some degree of understanding, however incomplete, (and therefore we shouldn’t even try), what else do you use to say that you think that a verse means this and not that?
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
I am curious; if you don’t think we could have some degree of understanding, however incomplete, (and therefore we shouldn’t even try), what else do you use to say that you think that a verse means this and not that?
Or, for that matter, what are we to make of claims that, e.g., information uncovered in the Dead Sea scrolls have changed our understanding of what a passage of scripture means?
--Tom Clune
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I am saying that because we can't know what the original authors and hearers are saying with absolute certainty, and because we can't approach Scripture without carrying our own culture/worldview/outlook, etc. into it, we, both as individuals and as church bodies, need to be a little more accepting of the diversity that occurs when people come to different conclusions, and open to changing interpretations over time.
The fiction I run into, particularly in the U.S. is when I see influential preachers apply western notions of fact, law, etc., into a pre-modern book, come to erroneous conclusions and then attempt to impose them on a congregation and in society.
Obviously as a Christian and as a gay person who had spent time analyzing the culture/worldview/language/etc., both current and ancient, that went into the 6 "clobber" passages I am most sensitive to this, but it has also lead me to putting more and more of the Bible into the "I don't know" category. The more I have delved into it, the more I found that is out of reach.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Obviously as a Christian and as a gay person who had spent time analyzing the culture/worldview/language/etc., both current and ancient, that went into the 6 "clobber" passages I am most sensitive to this, but it has also lead me to putting more and more of the Bible into the "I don't know" category.
If this isn't inappropriate in Kerygmania, let me suggest that you're drawing the wrong conclusion here. We've already been down this path. The world of scripture clearly was fully comfortable with slavery. The Bible has no discernable problem with the "peculiar institution." But we have learned to "read around" this cultural bias. We need not pretend that Christians of Philemon's day were really somehow opposed to slavery. We know otherwise and know that our hermeneutic needs to accommodate that unfortunate fact.
I think that it is a real mistake to try to read scripture in a way that ignores its homophobia or makes it some kind of proto-feminist document. Those prejudices are in there. Failing to recognize that requires us to contort our hermeneutic into a pretzel.
It calls to mind the story of the miser who saw a very nice second hand suit that was on sale. He tried it on, but the sleeves were too short. The salesman said, "No problem, just push them up and wrap your arms around your chest so that they don't fall back down. The pants were too long and the waist too large. "No problem," said the salesman. "Just grab the front of the pants in your right hand and pull them up." The miser bought the suit. As he was walking home in his new purchase, he passed a couple on the street. The woman said, "Look at that poor crippled man!" "Yes," her husband replied, "But did you notice how well his suit fit?"
Let us not become cripples just to keep our bankrupt hermeneutic looking like a good fit...
--Tom Clune
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I didn't want to discuss any specific passage; I was trying to make a general point using those passages as an example.
But maybe I can put what I am trying to say in the form of a question (and again just using homosexuality as an example I am NOT looking to debate this specific topic):
If the writer of Leviticus or St. Paul met a modern suburban gay couple in a committed relationship who wanted to become a Christian couple in the midst of his church and he learned a bit about them and their background, how would he react to their request?
My position is that we cannot know how he would react. We can guess and many do and come to a diverse spectrum of conclusions, but even those guesses are full of assumptions, by even faithful and knowledgeable people, which may or may not be true. I am also saying that putting ourselves in his shoes may not be the best approach to take with issues like this.
We can apply this same question to divorce, slavery or a host of other issues. Some answers may seem clearer because the acts themselves caused harm to innocents, or personal pain, but we reach those answers through the "love thy neighbour" ethic, not because we are able to successfully figure out everything that is going on in the background of particular passage.
Does that help?
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...analyzing the culture/worldview/language/etc., both current and ancient, that went into the 6 "clobber" passages...
It sounds as though you are already familiar with what those passages meant to their author and original audience - which was the point I was making: it is possible to get at that meaning. It's a completely different issue to (a) what we then do with those meanings when we seek to apply them to today; or (b) being open to way others down the years have interpreted them.
I understand your concern over the way some interpreters have read into these texts their own presuppositions, but it would be a shame if you were to throw the baby out with the bath water here - jettisoning the principle, processes and practices associated with gaining access to the original meaning of a text, simply because someone else misused their position and reading habits.
Being honest with the text as we have it is a first step.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
On the contrary, as I studied them I became convinced that I didn't know what the author's intention was or how the audience would have perceived them, and remain fully aware that I may be carrying my own preconceived ideas into the text as well.
[ 31. August 2009, 20:13: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If the writer of Leviticus or St. Paul met a modern suburban gay couple in a committed relationship who wanted to become a Christian couple in the midst of his church and he learned a bit about them and their background, how would he react to their request?
My position is that we cannot know how he would react.
We can apply this same question to divorce, slavery or a host of other issues.
Does that help?
If I understand your point, it appears to be that, since you can't know something that most folks would readily grant is impossible to know, you can't know something that most folks would assert is easy to know. It sounds like a sophistry to me.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
We need to...listen to the Word in our culture, time and place....
I became convinced that I didn't know what the author's intention was or how the audience would have perceived them...
With regard to hearing Scripture subjectively – listening to it as the Word for individual times and places, the point has been made several times already on this thread that this approach does not appear to be subject to falsification (i.e., there is no publicly acceptable way for validating the subjective reading).
If the subjective (for my time and place) approach is not capable of verification/validation/falsification, then we cannot judge between readings. Potentially there is then more prospect of doing harm than there would be if there is a process that is capable of justification / validation. As you say, the biblical texts have a regulating role in the Christian community. We seek out norms, ethics and guidelines for living from those texts. If there is no restraint over the multiplicity of competing 'meanings', each of which denies the primacy of the other, then to be consistent this means that no one individual should legitimately live out an ethic he or she 'hears' from the text if at any point it clashes with a competing ethic derived by a neighbour who 'heard' differently. In practice, of course, people don't behave like that. They do want to live out their ethic, even thought this causes harm to the larger community. Ultimately letting the 'Word speak to our culture, time and place' can only mean letting it speak to me alone, because I have my own idiolect, culture, time and place. This is inconsistent with the fact that we are not islands – we are community beings and always have been.
In the end, the multitude of readings become meaningless. By their individual subjective nature, they, ironically, all appear the same in that their presence forces the absence of the text. The more we 'celebrate the diversity of meanings' the more we have to push the text further away from us. The very text we want to cherish becomes, by the way we treat it, the very text that slips out of our reach. Lack of validation = lack of presence.
For me, I see this as the real danger – the potential for harm to the community, which is why I recognise the need to set a bar high when it comes to validation / falsification. Without it, I lose the very thing I think is needed for the community: the text that God used/uses as a tool for communicating to that community.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
We need to...listen to the Word in our culture, time and place....
I became convinced that I didn't know what the author's intention was or how the audience would have perceived them...
With regard to hearing Scripture subjectively – listening to it as the Word for individual times and places, the point has been made several times already on this thread that this approach does not appear to be subject to falsification (i.e., there is no publicly acceptable way for validating the subjective reading).
While I agree completely that there is an historical meaning to scriptures that is important to try to understand, the notion that there is something inappropriate about a personal and subjective meaning to scripture is a destructive one in my estimation. True, you will not be publishing your personal, subjective understanding in a refereed joiurnal. But scripture has importance well beyond academia.
The Church has long recognized the importance of reading scripture "illuminated by the Holy Spirit," and has long recognized that scripture can be read without benefit by those without faith. While there are clearly excesses along the lines of reading Bible verses like fortune cookies, "subjective" need not be that pejorative a term.
We are admonished to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and that is necessarily a subjective and partial enterprise. The fact that scripture can speak to us in a way that has special meaning for our unique circumstances is so widely recognized that it seems beyond questioning.
It is surely true that scripture does not find its value merely in the personal and subjective, but denying that there is a huge component of its value that resides precisely there is a strange denial of a huge swath of the history of the Church.
Being "subject to falsification" is perhaps a virtue in scientific attempts to test a theory, but as a general virtue of life it is of stunningly limited value.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
...the notion that there is something inappropriate about a personal and subjective meaning to scripture is a destructive one in my estimation.
I feared that this might be picked up on, Tom! It's difficult to cover all the bases in one post - even long ones.
I actually agree with what you say. There is a place for personal readings of Scripture; in fact the ideal would be that all readings, academic or otherwise, of a text like the bible should be subjective in the sense that the believing reader subjects himself or herself to the text, in the belief that God will speak through that text. I appreciate that I haven't mentioned anywhere thus far the role of the HS - that issue comes hotfoot after that of the reading of texts because of the place we need to afford the HS in incarnating God in our lives. The role of the HS also comes into play with the synchrony I mentioned much earlier on - how all of those varied texts in the bible hang together to speak on a new level (more than the sum of the parts).
However the point I've been focusing on so much on this thread has been narrower: as soon as we make our reading(s) a public mission - i.e. as soon as we speak about or live out our readings - even in discussion here on the Ship (a community/public forum), we need to be ready and able to provide a reasoned defence of our claims. As such, it wouldn't just be the academy where authorial intent becomes important.
I think the question for me is, how is it actually possible ever to have a purely personal and private reading? Does not such a reading impact on the way we live, even if in a small way? And if we are as humans in community, sooner or later the way we live impacts on our neighbours, for better or worse. As soon as it does we have to have some mechanism to defend our stance.
If the God we believe in has a mission and has determined to work through his people to achieve the mission's objectives, perhaps we need the 'wise as doves / cunning as serpents' double act: - inbreathed and guided by the HS / capable of convincing others.
Nigel
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I feared that this might be picked up on, Tom! It's difficult to cover all the bases in one post - even long ones.
<Snip>
And if we are as humans in community, sooner or later the way we live impacts on our neighbours, for better or worse. As soon as it does we have to have some mechanism to defend our stance.
If the God we believe in has a mission and has determined to work through his people to achieve the mission's objectives, perhaps we need the 'wise as doves / cunning as serpents' double act: - inbreathed and guided by the HS / capable of convincing others.
Hi, Nigel.
I certainly am not interested in tripping you up here. I hope that I did not come off as trying to do so. But I think our worries are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.
My experience is that of being in environments where "cleverness" easily elides into "truth." I am more suspicious of argumentation than I am of revelation. I recognize that both are able to be abused by people. I am just more familiar with the former than the latter problem. (You may know Bertrand Russell's line about the joy of philosophy -- starting with innocuous premises and, by careful logic, arriving at absurd conclusions. I know all but the pleasure in that.)
So I tend to be leery of argumentation as a road to insight. I find it hard enough to express at all what I have experienced. When I start to argue for its correctness, I quickly slip into sophistry, and the truth of my own vision evaporates before my eyes.
I find the enterprise of defending my views fraught with peril for the views themselves. Some folks would say, "Well, I guess you really didn't have a vision in the first place." And that may be true. But I have come to believe that God's Truth is not the sort of thing that can be captured in an argument.
I don't think that's just a convenient fiction. It may not apply to everyone -- some may be called to be defenders of the faith or what-have-you. But, for me, I have all I can do to share the vision. Defending it is simply out of reach.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I have come to believe that God's Truth is not the sort of thing that can be captured in an argument.
I agree. However, if the individual's revelations/interpretations are not anchored to an historical meaning of the text, the question that we might be asking next may very well be 'which god?'
IMHO, it is precisely because we do bring our own world views and desires into the reading when approaching the Bible, it is all the more important that a correct understanding and interpretation of historical meaning is taken as a balancing and corrective force to guide us in our Christian walk.
For a christian to say that because we don't have the Biblical writers with us today therefore we shouldn't even try to undestand what the text meant originally seems to me a bizarre position to take and therefore has made this argument/discussion necessary. I also don't think this argument is about God's truth. It is a step further back, it is how we get to God's truth.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
By the way I wanted to say thanks to Nigel and tclune for your feedback. You have given me much to think about. I am not sure I am ready to change my position (YET!) but the feedback is a good place to start.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
The benefit flows both ways, ToujoursDan - my thanks to you and Tom as well; these discussions always serve to challenge my presuppositions. The Forum is a bit like one of those hermeneutic spirals: I come across a different understanding, I am challenged and changed as a result, so next time I come with better approach, am challenged again...
First Church of Dizzy Readings.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Might we continue with this a little further? I think that I'd have considerable difficulty keeping up with the intellectual level of the arguments so far, but they seem to be teasing out stuff that should be useful to the "ordinary" pew-polisher.
If we say that the meaning of the original writers is clear - or "clear enough" and the tenor of the passage seems to be intolerant or cruel to modern eyes, then those who see themselves as "victims" (if the passage is put ino effect) are forced to say "The bible is wrong." I once heard a Dean of Gloucester Cathedral say precisely that, and I agreed with him. But that can hardly fail to be divisive.
Sometimes, scholars tell us that what the author is saying is all in the interpretation. For instance, that God's punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah was for transgressing the rules of hospitality, not for sexual misdemeanours. Or that Paul's order that women should be silent
had a contextual application of which we have no knowledge. Casuistry? Wishful thinking?
Nigel is right about human nature, of course. There have always been bigots. And there have always been saints and philanthropists. And there have possibly always been poets. But how does the Song of Solomon, or the later poetry of Isaiah, illustrate Nigel's - or ToujoursDan's - point? How did the odd collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas - or its predecessors - become the structured narratives of the gospels?
I agree that in the pulpit a broadly common interpretation of the biblical writings makes practical common sense. But sermons are chiefly for preaching rather than exegesis - or so I was told.
The two main protagonists above have agreed to differ (for the time being?) but I'd like them or soeone else to go on, with some specific examples illustrating their points. They cannot both be entirely right or entirely wrong, but it would be useful to try to work out where one or the other hits the mark.
[ 02. September 2009, 19:47: Message edited by: pimple ]
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Just to clarify "Casuistry? Wishful thinking?" These are not accusations on my part, but an indication that the second attitude can be divisive, too. Nigel's assertion that we can know
what the original authors meant doesn't mean that we can do without the hard work of teasing those meanings out. But there are people who regard any scholarship as a challenge to their belief that "what the Bible says" is obvious and needs no interpretation.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
If we say that the meaning of the original writers is clear - or "clear enough" and the tenor of the passage seems to be intolerant or cruel to modern eyes, then those who see themselves as "victims" (if the passage is put ino effect) are forced to say "The bible is wrong." I once heard a Dean of Gloucester Cathedral say precisely that, and I agreed with him. But that can hardly fail to be divisive.
I know a guy who once said, "I have come not to bring peace, but a sword." I think sometimes we worry too much about "getting along" in the Chruch, and not enough about being remade in the image of Christ.
As I read scriptures, I find that they often contradict other passages of scripture. I don't think that "going down smoothly" is the right paradigm for approaching scriptures.
We need to be discomfited in some of our views, and even when we think that we have gotten it right, we should not be too sure of ourselves. God speaks in a still small voice, and it's very easy to miss what He says.
I often think that the most important thing that we can do for the faithful is to get them to stop being so damned smug, and acknowledge that they may well be trying to follow the Lord of all creaation, but they are still as frail-ly human as everybody else. Breaking down that awful sense of certainty would go a long way to restoring an honest unity of the Church to my way of thinking.
--Tom Clune
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Ah, yes. But sometimes I hold close to my heart treasured certainties that tend to make me smug in secret - because I know, I just somehow know, what the faithful couldn't accept in a month of Sundays!
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
We need not pretend that Christians of Philemon's day were really somehow opposed to slavery. We know otherwise and know that our hermeneutic needs to accommodate that unfortunate fact.
I think that it is a real mistake to try to read scripture in a way that ignores its homophobia or makes it some kind of proto-feminist document. Those prejudices are in there. Failing to recognize that requires us to contort our hermeneutic into a pretzel.
and elsewhere
As I read scriptures, I find that they often contradict other passages of scripture. I don't think that "going down smoothly" is the right paradigm for approaching scriptures.
If I may paraphrase what I'm reading from your comments: the Bible does not "say" anything. Individual authors in the canon say things, and sometimes contradict each other. It may be plain what Paul says about subject X, but that does not make it authoritative or binding per se. We should not be afraid to disagree with the biblical authors on subjects like slavery, which are alien to our culture but accepted in the times in which they were writing. Although the Bible does not speak with a unified voice, it may way speak to me when read in the correct way. We should all have humility in the face of this non-objective nature of revealed truth.
Please feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented!
I would agree with pretty much all of the above. We cannot of course be objective in our reading, so the cultural differences that stand out will be those places where the writer's culture seems most at odds with our own. If we then free to downplay what they say, isn't it subordinating the message of the Bible to our own cultural norms? Is the idea of sola scriptura, that the Bible is its own interpreter, untenable?
I suppose I'm just echoing Nigel M's question quote:
what grounds would you be able to use to justify / validate an interpretation you hear of a text[?]
- Chris.
PS: hope my tenor is appropriate for Keryg. I'm an infrequent visitor, although threads like this make me think I should stop by more often. Kudos to all involved!
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
We cannot of course be objective in our reading, so the cultural differences that stand out will be those places where the writer's culture seems most at odds with our own. If we then free to downplay what they say, isn't it subordinating the message of the Bible to our own cultural norms? Is the idea of sola scriptura, that the Bible is its own interpreter, untenable?
I suppose I'm just echoing Nigel M's question quote:
what grounds would you be able to use to justify / validate an interpretation you hear of a text[?]
- Chris.
Your summary is pretty much what I think. I do think that there are interpretations that are more or less true to the way that the passage would have originally been perceived, and such readings require immersing oneself in linguistics, archaeology, history, etc. to try to acquire a broad enough understanding of the cultural context to be able to appreciate the subtleties of an alien culture. I don't think that all knowledge is subjective. Similarly, I think that an interpretation of, say, Romans that takes the entire book into account has a firmer foundation than an interpretation of a single sentence in isolation.
But I also am firmly convinced that, when we approach scriptures with a humble and contrite heart, the Holy Spirit may reveal to us God's will for our lives in a way that may or may not be rigorously reflective of the denotative sense of the passage we were studying at the time. [We may be parting company at this point...] I don't feel the need to justify such revelations to anyone. I'm not even sure that they apply to anyone else -- or, if so, how they do. But I am convinced that when we approach the study of scripture with a reverent attitude, that we may place ourselves in the presence of the Almighty, and that this is not equivalent to what may happen when we read a moving poem or the like.
I know that that is not the sort of thing that empiricists tend to take seriously, and I'm fine with that, but I think that they are impoverishing their lives thereby. As to sola scriptura, I was raised in a church that upheld a mild form of it -- that everything that is necessary for one's salvation can be vetted through the scriptures. But I'm not sure that I quite believe even the "weak" form of this doctrine anymore.
I am firmly convinced that the Bible is one of the holy grounds upon which we may meet the Almighty, but that is as far as I can go with confidence. I think that it is important for us to witness to what we have received in those encounters, and I think that it is entirely appropriate to listen to the critiques of fellow Christians -- especially if they suggest that what I think I have received is at odds with what the great cloud of saints have testified to over the centuries. It is certainly possible to be mistaken. But I don't really feel the need to "justify" what I have been given. That is a bit more rigorous a notion than I think I can support, given how tenuous our contact with the Almighty is in the first place. I hope that is intelligible, even if not convincing.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
...I'd like them or soeone else to go on, with some specific examples illustrating their points. They cannot both be entirely right or entirely wrong, but it would be useful to try to work out where one or the other hits the mark.
Looking back, it does rather seem as though this was an either/or discussion – one can have an objective methodological approach, or one can have a personal application, but one cannot possibly have both. As so often, these dichotomies are more apparent than real. I think there are strengths and weaknesses in both views – but I also think Tom was hinting at another good point, that there are more than two ways of seeing this.
I've been wondering how we might best think of this all, because I think it's best to think of interpretation as a moveable point between a few poles – a sliding scale along which we move, rather than distinct points separated from each other. How about this for starters?:
Life is a triangle.
(It's tempting to just stop there and suggest we all meditate on what's happened here today...)
The triangle has three (blimey!) corners: A, B, and C.
Angle A represents readings that are personal, private, meditational;
Angle B represents readings that are public, universal, objective (as near as can be – with the aim of being publicly verifiable);
Angle C represents readings that are local, communal (cultural?), aiming to be relevant to current needs in a specific time and place.
I may be missing an angle or two here, but hopefully it gets things going. Would I be right in saying that while some Christians might gravitate more often than not to one of the angles, generally speaking we tend to float within the triangle, moving from one angle to another as the mood or need arises?
Being conscious of that fact that poor old IconiumBound has been sitting on the bleachers, arms folded, tapping his feet and glancing from time to time at his watch, wondering just what a guy has to do to get an answer round here, I'll try and demonstrate by reference to one of the passages in the OP: Joshua 24.
Angle A: Anita reads the Joshua text because she believes the text has (or should have) relevance to her lifestyle: she wants to know how she should live and believes (or has been told) that Joshua 24 will provide some insight into that. She might approach the text prayerfully, perhaps letting her mind go with the flow rather than actively seeking an application through any conscious process. What interpretation might Anita offer? “I sensed that I was being challenged to go back over my life and remember the key moments where God helped me out. I realised that perhaps I had not been properly grateful to God for all that he had done and that I needed to take the time now to re-commit myself to God and re-evaluate the prominent things in my life right now.”
Angle B: Brian reads the Joshua text because he is a leader in the church and has just been confronted with a leaflet that is doing the rounds among Christians at the behest of a political party that represents itself as a Christian alternative to the rest in politics. The leaflet alleges that Christians are duty bound to reject alliances or accommodations with any non-Christian grouping, to establish the pure Christian faith in the land by routing out unbelief, and to hold allegiance to God alone rather than any man-made institution or constitution. The leaflet refers approvingly to Joshua 24. Brian is not really reading here for a personal, subjective guide for his life. His commitment to this text has been forced upon him and he has to assess the validity of the claims made on the basis of that text. His interpretation? “The argument has been raised on the basis of Joshua 24:14 that Christians have a God-given obligation to commit themselves to the Lord alone and to physically reject anything that conflicts with this. If Christians fail to do this, it is claimed, we will suffer disaster. I agree that verse 14 forms a peak in the narrative and therefore could be said to be a most important and relevant injunction upon believers. However, it is clear from the preceding verses that the national activities of driving out non-believers were undertaken by God alone: his people had no hand in it. I conclude that there is no injunction on Christians to become violently active against non-believers today.”
Angle C: Carolyn reads the passage as a member of a community of women who have suffered domestic abuse. She believes in God and reads to learn more about God, but is suspicious of the tone she comes across so often in the Bible. She reads Joshua 24 and finds herself torn between two emotions: a desire to be committed to the God of Jesus, but also a real fear and raised stress levels when she finds that same God placed in conjunction with violence. Her reading? “I have to balance this passage very firmly with teachings from elsewhere in the bible, especially from the gospel, if I am to find any relevance here at all. I need to strip out the violence, because that has caused me such harm, but I also want to retain the commitment to serve God no matter what.”
Bearing these three approaches in mind, is it fair to say that the approach we take at any given point will be pre-determined by the questions we are asking? In a sense they all have the same starting point: they are committed to the text because they accept it has authority; they believe they may find out more about God – or even that God will provide guidance for them. There are some common assumptions: the text has an author (divine or human) that wishes to speak to us; the text has enough cohesion and coherence to make some sort of sense; and the text should be relevant.
It seems to me that all three readers have this in common: they start from the same base. After that, however, they glide at the text from different directions – in other words, their angle of approach is different. The variant here is the degree or type of pre-determination each brings to the text and the question being asked, or the issue that needs a resolution.
Three different reading approaches – the strengths of each being:
A – caters for the spiritual (whole?) side of humans; forces a personal reflection on how one is doing; stands back from the rather entangled lives in community.
B – provides a grounding for a stable faith; encourages growth in that faith and the ability to think for oneself, rather than relying on the direction given by others (which might be spurious).
C – seeks relevance from the text for life situations here and now; grapples with the culture as it is and with life experiences as they are.
Perhaps the challenge we face is how can move towards one angle without breaking links completely with the other two angles. Balance a personal, universal and relevant reading.
Nigel
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I hope that is intelligible, even if not convincing.
Both intelligible and entirely reasonable. How you describe reading the Bible for inspiration chimes with how it seems to be used in practice (in MOTR evangelicalism, anyway). Interestingly, quite a different way from when doing theology, which can cause problems for people like me in bible study groups!
thanks for taking time to write such a lucid summary.
All the best,
- Chris.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
Well, what a pleasure to find this thread! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
There is certainly a broad range of posts around these message boards. Before reading this thread (or to be more accurate, skimming it and dipping in and out) I waded through the four pages of the thread started by Anglican2009 about the Chapter and Worse poll, which had been transferred to the Hell forum. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
I’m not sure that I can contribute at the same level of erudition as the main protagonists (or should that be contributors?) above, but I’d like to add a few thoughts.
I think that in theory, authorial intention should be given a high status when approaching the texts of the Bible. To what extent this is achievable in practice, bearing in mind the distance of time, culture, and language between us as readers and the authors, is perhaps one of the main themes of this thread. (Please note that in using the term ‘authors’ I am not necessarily denying the divine inspiration of the Bible. Whatever one believes about inspiration, the expression of that inspiration was in a specific historical context and language.) So I reckon that the first task when approaching a biblical passage is to try to understand it in the historical context. (Forgive me if I’m making a statement of the blindingly obvious here.) To do this requires extra-biblical information, so I’m afraid that although I was brought up with the principle of sola scriptura I no longer think that it is tenable. Not least in view of the task of trying to determine the referents and semantic domains of the words used in the original languages. Which requires an in-depth understanding of the social and linguistic context of the author. To what extent that is achievable in view of the hazards of historical study is certainly a tough subject for debate.
Does this change over time? Well, perhaps the understanding that can be gained is refined and amended as we understand more about the historical context of the original text, and therefore perhaps gain a more accurate understanding of authorial intent. I vaguely remember that Tom Wright has written along these lines in his book: Paul: Fresh perspectives / N T Wright (London: SPCK,2005) But I reckon that the original authorial intention does not change over time.
I also think that an essential requirement for understanding a Biblical passage is the desire in the heart (mind/will/emotion) of the reader to accept and submit to it as the Word of God – which allows the Holy Spirit to influence the understanding gained. (And yes, even the difficult and ‘unacceptable’ bits as some forum members would describe them.)
I don’t think that we have to choose either learned scholarship or spiritual enlightenment – we need both.
In re-reading some of the recent posts I’ve realised that I’ve repeated several of the points already made by Tom Clune, so I’m not sure how much I’ve progressed the debate. But at least it shows that there’s someone else who agrees with the points made.
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Well, what a pleasure to find this thread!
Welcome to the ship, A.Pilgrim! Glad you started here, not Hell. There's an official welcome thread in All Saints, if you haven't already found it: do drop in and say hello.
- Chris.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
Welcome to the Ship and Kerygmania, A.Pilgrim! Your journey from Hell to Kerygmania is, I suppose, to travel from the ridiculous to the sublime!
The subject matter of this thread is quite vast and you have pulled out another aspect that hasn't really been touched on yet: the role of the divine author; any 'authorial meaning' that attaches to that role, and the relationship between God as divine author and the human authors of the biblical texts.
I would agree with you that – assuming there such a thing as authorial intention we can get at – that it is unchangeable through time. What changes is the way we apply the text, bounded by that meaning, to our times. There is an argument that if are dealing with two types of author (one divine and one human), then perhaps it matters not what the human author meant, we only need to find out what God meant – and that might be something completely different. It's tricky finding out what God meant in a passage if all we have to go on is the expression of the human author, but I suppose there might be scope for saying that God's meaning is to be found at the canon level – where all the texts come together and become 'more than the sum of the parts'.
The tough part, I find, is trying to marry the 'spiritual' with the 'scholarship' at the same time. It feels trying to push together magnets of similar poles. I can be either spiritual (angle A in my last post) or scholarly about a text (angle B), but the angle of approach is so different that its tricky to be spiritually scholastic about a text (or scholarly spiritual – not sure which way round is best...).
Ah, well; “We're having an epiphany” said the Regius Professor of Textual Criticism as he rugby-tackled the Dean of Theology over his approach to Matt. 5:11.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
...how does the Song of Solomon, or the later poetry of Isaiah, illustrate Nigel's - or ToujoursDan's - point?
ToujourDan made the point about the variety of genres in the bible. Good little exegetes are taught to pay attention to genre when they come to a text so that do not misread aspects of human language. Poetry, I think, is that hardest form of language to be 'critical' at, i.e., it's harder to identify human authorial meaning in poetry than it is in, say, Paul's letters. No doubt this factor in poetry lay behind the many punch-ups between literary critics in the past century - should a poem be read critically or aesthetically?
Practically speaking, though, poetry is also hard to build theology on. Those passages that cause the most division and angst in Christianity come more from the prosaic end of the linguistic spectrum, so perhaps the issue of authorial intention is moot at the poetic end.
Having said that, however, language is not really an either/or here, is it? We are not either poetic or prosaic; in our language use we are more or less prosaic, more or less poetic. That last clause was a bit poetic! If this is the case, then rather than seeking to divide the bible into neat little genres boxes, perhaps a more fruitful way to approach the texts is to place them along a three-dimensional spectrum in the triangle model: A, B, C, and fit it to the model in my earlier post.
Angle A takes the the more poetic and figurative sections of texts;
Angle B takes the more prosaic texts;
Angle C - well I'm going to dump everything from the middle of the spectrum, those 'genres' that people can't agree on - e.g., the Gospels.
At the extreme end of Angle B lie railway timetables. Pure impartation of information with no frills needed; strict "I say to You..." type of language. Much from Paul's letters swim towards this angle.
At the extreme end of Angle A we find the likes of John Cage's rendition of 4' 33". Song of Songs and many parts of the Psalms lie towards this angle. More Affective use of language here, designed to draw expression out of the hearer/reader. The author and intended audience pretty much disappear from view - "Someone says..." type of language.
Then there are the Gospels (or parts thereof). Angle C is not first person (angle B), but neither is it anonymous (angle A). It is more "He (or she) says to You..." type of language; third person author.
Authorial Intention is up close and personal in Angle B, which is, I think, why theology is easier to find in that part of the spectrum. The author starts to back away in angle C - and theology becomes harder to tie down. We lose the author pretty much in angle A, and theology is blown to the wind.
Not sure where that leaves us! Personal preference? My own thought is that even in angle A it is still possible to talk about authorial intention, though harder identify. Different criteria apply.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
Thanks for the welcome, Chris & Nigel.
I did compose a substantial post as my next contribution to this thread, but then decided to re-read the first page of the thread, and found that the points I had made had been covered already by different contributors. I must go through the arguments already made and cogitate deeply so as to say something that takes the debate further. I just don't have the time at the moment!
But in re-reading the very first post (that's the OP in forum jargon?) I realised that it was about a subject that has been nagging in my mind for years.
IB was commenting on whether a verse from the book of Judges had the same validity of application to today as a verse from Ephesians or the gospel of John. The essential point is that I suspect that the Old Testament does not have the same applicability to today that the New Testament does, because it relates (or the great majority of it does) to the Old Covenant which God established with Abraham, which has been superseded by the New Covenant established by Jesus. So it's not so much that scripture changes over time, but that a dramatic and revolutionary change happened at the change from the Old to the New Covenants, which changes the way that scripture is applied before and after Christ.
How that suggestion could be applied and developed is a big, big debate, and I don't want to take this thread off topic (or at least the way that it has developed up to now), so I might start a new thread on this subject. But this proposition that I've outlined has enormous implications for many of the debates on this entire debating site - including many of the 'Chapter and Worse' proposals.
I regret that I don't have time to explain further, but I hope to return when I've got some spare time.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
Welcome aboard Pilgrim. You have brought up what I asked in my OP.
quote:
So it's not so much that scripture changes over time, but that a dramatic and revolutionary change happened at the change from the Old to the New Covenants, which changes the way that scripture is applied before and after Christ.
But I don't agree that the Hebrew Scriptures are obsolete as you imply, if I read you right. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't accept that either.
What I was trying to point out was that IF we can't accept something from the OT that doesn't square with our present cultural mores then why not apply the same to the NT? As was the case in the reading from Ephesians. And as might be done with John should there come a time when Jesus' words of consecration would be seen as merely metaphorical; "He really didn't mean this should be sacramentalized".
"It'll never happen!" you masy say. but if we have already taken some verses lightly, why not?
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
I suppose, practically speaking, we are all 'scissors' Christians to a greater or lesser extent even when it comes to the NT. There are passages that we don't know what to do with, or that we just cannot feel to be relevant, and so we have to ignore, cut out, explain away or, as you suggest, offer an alternative more spiritual/symbolic meaning.
Re: the John passage, some interpreters argue that Jesus meant the words he spoke to be taken figuratively and that a sacramental layer was added later.
Whichever way it goes, though, your point is a good challenge. Before we can read a passage figuratively, should the argument be that we need to be able to demonstrate that the language used in that passage's context is not literal (in the sense of being non-figurative)?
If that is what we should be doing, what criteria should we use to demonstrate just that? I would start a list with consideration of the following aspects:
[1] Genre; but would want to qualify that with the observation that genre is only a starting point: e.g., a poem can contain literal language, so labelling a passage 'poetry' could be counter-productive. Something more nuanced is needed.
[2] Co-text is important; how the words fit together with their surrounding words in that passage.
[3] Where the passage's unit begins and ends; which starts a consideration of the context.
[4] Flow of thought; depending on the genre, how the argument proceeds, or the language flows, or the plot develops...
[5] Language use; e.g., is the author prone to using figurative expressions?
[6] For biblical passages, direct quotes from, paraphrases, and allusions to earlier passages. This might offer a clue as to whether an author intended literal or figurative language use.
[7] The perfect number, so this criterion must be "God told me".
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
IB, sorry I haven't had time to get back to the OT/NT subject, but I hope to soon. I'm not ignoring your post.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
I’ve just gone back and read the OP more carefully, and I think that I’ve not quite understood the exact point being made in it when composing my previous replies. Confusion reigns! IconiumBound asked:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
...
If we can accept this allowance for interpreting this passage, why not the passage of Joshua giving a fire and brimstone sermon to the Israelites?
...
Well, quite so. And my position would be that, no, we can’t accept this allowance for interpreting this passage. Mainly because IMO the interpretation from the commentary quoted turns the argument of the passage in Ephesians upside down and back-to-front* – and if we accepted that amount of allowance there, one could interpret any Biblical passage any way one liked.
It’s not that the Bible needs reinterpreting in each generation or culture, it needs re-applying . What can change with time is how specific instructions are relevant or applicable to each period or people. (For example, the different applicability of OT laws in NT times – see other thread.) That’s the theory, anyway – I accept that putting this into practice can be tough.
But there’s another factor. The practice of reinterpretation of biblical passages and verses is often done by different people in different times so as to avoid having to apply them – because people will often do as much dodging and turning and twisting and diving as they can to avoid having to admit the challenge and authority that God’s Word has over them. As, IMO, the commentator quoted has done.
I don’t give any credence to the ‘reader-response’ theory that says that meaning only appears when a reader engages with a text, and varies from reader to reader. It’s a very post-modern theory, with the ethos that nothing is certain or definite, or can be known for sure, but everything is subjective. As I mentioned before, authorial intention is primary, and communication can only take place between author and reader when the reader seeks to find the meaning of the authors words. It isn’t difficult – we’re doing it right now, with me writing this post, and you the reader, reading the words I’ve used. The amazing thing is that God himself wishes to communicate with his created beings, and has spoken. And some people will do anything they can to avoid listening.
I’m not going to go into the OT/NT subject here, I think I’ll start a new thread on it, despite IB’s most recent post saying that this was what was in mind. I don’t think that it’s in the theme of how this thread has developed up to now.
*Full explanation omitted to reduce size of post.
Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on
:
A.Pilgrim, you speak music to my ear.
Welcome to the Ship.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
Thanks for the welcome, Pooks.
By the way, I like your sig. - definitely one to remember. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(OK, back on topic...)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0