When it comes to Hermeneutics, too many people believe they’ve got some kind of divine handling on interpreting the Bible. We’ll briefly outline two cases of hermeneutics in order to give evidence that interpreting the Bible is not as simple as some may believe.
Our two cases are the New Testament and the US Constitution. Why the Constitution and not something like Homer’s Odyssey? Simple. Homer’s Odyssey has little value in a person’s life. If something is misinterpreted in it, there are no repercussions or consequences. If we are to treat the NT as something important, then it is not logical to compare it to something unimportant. So now, on to the show!
Dates and Names
The US Constitution was adopted on 17 September 1787 and later ratified by conventions in each state. The autograph (original document) is located in the National Archives and on display still today. It is just over 220 years old. We have records of who attended the Constitutional Convention, as well as personal journals from many of these members concerning the Constitution and its creation. In addition, we have the signatures of all of the delegates.
To be generous, we’ll say that the New Testament was written by various authors between 40 and 120. Our first complete copy is Codex Sinaiticus, which is believed to have been written in the early fourth century with 330 being the earliest date.
Given these dates, there is a 210 year gap between the latest writing date of the NT and the earliest date of CodSin. We do possess fragments that date earlier. P52 is the earliest known fragment and contains just a few words from John 18. It dates to 150. We have no personal journals of the authors of the NT today. In fact, besides Paul, John, and Peter, no other author is named in the NT. This is expected when dealing with a document that is nearly 2000 years old. Compared to other ancient documents, this is at the high end of transmission fidelity.
The Rub
The US Constitution has always been highly debated. This is why we have a judicial system in which judges try to determine the intent of the Constitution. By 1810–25 years after the Constitution was signed–there were differing views on interpreting the Constitution, even by some of the original delegates! Even today, if one would question Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas about the Constitution, one would find two very different approaches and answers.
The NT has also had a history of being highly debatable, but this has lessened in recent history. Today, all too many people believe that their interpretation of the NT is the only viable interpretation. They ignore (or are completely unaware of) the history of hermeneutics with regards to the NT. So, how is one to interpret the NT and the Bible? That remains to be determined, but asserting that one particular interpretation must be the correct one seems to be the one position that denigrates the NT and the history of Christianity.
Good article, cchrisr. I like the open-ended format. Here are some of my laymen’s rules for New Testament hermeneutics:
1. Context, context, context - Too many people take one passage out of its setting to make it mean something it was obviously not intended to mean. This does not mean, however, that a scripture cannot have multiple applications.
2. Know your audience - New Testament audiences are not that varied, and all scriptures in it are profitable for teaching but they must be rightly applied. Jesus’ audience in the Gospels were Jews still under the Old Covenant, so that must be taken into account - particularly when reference is made to the Law of Moses.
3. The Bible is progressive revelation - More and more light is continually revealed as we get to the Epistles. The Old Testament and the Gospels should be interpreted in light of the Epistles.
4. Beware careful about drawing conclusions from narrative absent other scriptural support - Enough said.
5. Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established - Nothing of any substance will only be mentioned once. Don’t make mountains of molehills.
6. Determine the order of importance by the degree of emphasis - Assume that if something is repeated over and over that it is important.
7. Do not approach the scripture with preconceived ideas absent a sufficient biblical foundation - Otherwise you will attempt to make the Bible fit your flawed perspective.
8. Use scripture to interpret scripture - This one goes along with rule 3.
9. Be aware of culture and history - This is important in understanding context.
10. Understand figurative language - This is most important when interpreting the book of Revelation. Understanding the symbols requires fairly extensive knowledge of the Old Testament prophets since the symbolic language is consistent.
Good synopsis, Chris. RC Sproul did a book (and video series) on “Knowing Scripture.” He covers most of your points in fairly good depth.
“Good synopsis, Chris. RC Sproul did a book (and video series) on “Knowing Scripture.” He covers most of your points in fairly good depth.”
Yeah, I have that book. Excellent read.
Yay, cchrisr, and article I could understand!
I see your point in comparing the constitution and the NT in some ways, but not in others. Yes, the meaning of both documents is interpreted in various ways and will continue to be.
But the two documents are not the same in their age, the way they came to exist, or, more to the point, the fact that most of us here think one of them is divinely inspired. What I’m trying to say is that the stakes are lots higher for knowing the meaning of the NT than of the constitution. So you might be comparing apples to oranges.
Good comment, thainamu. Exactly my thought.
Thainamu, in some ways, though, your response is a cop-out. To the christian, there is no other document that is as unique as the NT. The only things it can be compared to from a historiographic point of view are texts of other religion, in which case we’ll get the all-too-familiar “that’s from a false religion” argument, or some kind of other document that does have value to people. As I noted in the first section, the standard comparison with Homer’s works (or sometimes Ceasar’s Commentaries on the Civil War) is useless because they have no value in a person’s belief structure.
And yet, let me turn your response on it’s head and get to the more important point. Isn’t that all the more reason why one should be careful in how one reads and interprets the Bible? Let me put it this way: if one misinterprets Homer’s Odyssey, we may have a faulty translation. If one misinterprets the US Constitution, it may mean some time in jail (or in very extreme cases, death). What about if one misinterprets the Bible? At the most extreme, it means we have (yet another) nutcase thinking he’s the returning Messiah or people not believing Jesus rose from the dead. Having the belief that one somehow tapped into God’s personal thought process and understands the Bible on the same level as God seems to suggest that one esteems oneself more highly than the Bible and religious tradition.
“Having the belief that one somehow tapped into God’s personal thought process and understands the Bible on the same level as God…”
When I read the Bible and interpret it however I do, I don’t think I’ve exactly “tapped into God’s personal thought process” and I certainly don’t think I understand the Bible on the same level as God. However, I do think that God intentionally (as in, divinely directed) gave us a written message for us to use to find our way to him. The Bible itself claims that in various places, for instance:
Yes, I sometimes wish the Bible were a precise mathematical formula that we could all precisely understand and not argue about what it “really” means. But that isn’t what God gave us. He not only gave us a story, it is many people’s stories, written over many years, by many authors, in more than one foreign language, about more than one foreign culture, and on a topic that just makes no human sense–and it had to be translated various times before we could even begin to understand it. It is a wonder we get any of it!
If it were a precise, provable formula we wouldn’t need any faith–we would only need reason and logic and information. But somehow and for some reason God asks us to believe. He makes the message of Christ hard for us logical thinkers, but easy for children.
I wonder if the God of all logic didn’t somehow intentionally make logic the stone that makes us stumble and the rock that makes us fall. Why didn’t he just let us find him via reason and logic, why does he make us be little children and accept by faith. It isn’t fair!
[Sorry, Chris. Don’t take any of that as a personal attack. I’m just thinking about this in relation to the topic I posted about this morning in the Forum–people losing their faith because something in the Bible or the Christian life doesn’t “make sense.”]
Thainamu, I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me. My primary point is “people who think they’ve got the only correct interpretation of the Bible pride themselves and their logic over the Bible and God.” People should be very careful in reading and interpreting the Bible because it is a very nuanced text that is vitally important to a christian. I’m not saying that the Bible needs to be a precise mathematical formula at all! In fact, quite the contrary: I’ve studied the way its interpretation has changed over time–which is not how formulae work.
cchrisr, I don’t thing we are really disagreeing much either. And I know you would not wish the Bible to be a precise mathematical formula–I’m just saying if it were, things would be easier for some of us!
I also agree that the Bible is a very nuanced text, if I understand that term correctly. I mean, if the text is divinely inspired, it might have meanings on many levels and relevance for many times.
I too object to people who think they know it all, who think they know the one and only right meaning of a given Biblical text, no questions allowed. On the other hand, I fear the stance that is its opposite–that the Bible is full of error both specific and general, irrelevant, etc. and therefore, is not authoritative.
I still have to come back to exploring the part faith has in how we view the Bible. It is almost like a catch-22. If we don’t have faith, we can’t accept the “imperfections” (in transmission or translation or interpretation) because logically one would conclude that a divinely-inspired document wouldn’t have any imperfections. On the other hand, if we “have faith” we could accept any old thing and take it as divinely inspired–lots of sad examples of that through history.