In biblical exegesis, the interpreter is faced with a
number of challenges. Discerning
meaning from ancient texts is not such a straightforward task—there are many
factors that must be taken into account.
This essay is a brief survey of the factors involved.
As the exegete, we are confronted with a multiplicity
of exegetical methods. Raymond E. Brown
discusses these briefly in his book An Introduction to the New Testament (1997:
20-29). He makes the distinction between textual, source, form, redaction,
canonical, structuralist, narrative, rhetorical, social, and advocacy
criticisms. And while Brown suggests
that these approaches “must be combined” (pg 28), others take a different
position on the matter. König et al
(1998: 298) point out that some believe a single approach to be the only
legitimate one, while others believe “there may be an element of truth, of
value, of usefulness, in all or most of them”.
B.C. Lategan suggests that the literary form will determine the
appropriate method (Anchor, Vol. III, 1992: 153-154). There are those who single out certain exegetical approaches as
inappropriate in all cases. For
instance, McQuilkin labels naturalist, supernaturalist, existential, and
dogmatic approaches as “faulty” (1992: 23-24).
But the dispute in exegetical method is only one of the problems that
interpreters are faced with.
The Bible refers to historical events, and biblical
authors placed great emphasis on people, places and events (Hayes, 1971: 8). Of
the New Testament, Brown points out that “it was written in a particular
political, social, cultural and theological milieu”. As the corollary, the exegete should take into account the
historical and socio-cultural settings in order to understand the text on its
own terms, and not from a 21st century context. Historical study of the world behind the
text, therefore, is needed to form the necessary frame of reference for an
adequate understanding of Scripture.
Without such knowledge, the reader will be unable to bridge the
hermeneutical gap between antiquity and modernity.
The adoption of the mindset of biblical authors adds
to the complexity and difficulty of biblical interpretation. Deist et al submit that awareness of
the “primitive” character of society to which the audiences of biblical texts
belonged is essential (1999: 47). The
difficulty of this exercise becomes more evident as T. S. Milton notes that
even “personal intercourse between individuals of the same nation and language
is often difficult and embarrassing by reason of their different styles of
thought and expression” (1999: 20). One
example of this can be seen in the second letter of Peter, where the author
found things in Paul’s epistles that were difficult to understand (II Peter 3:16). And if this can occur in such a short space
of time and such close proximity, the probability of it occurring with 21st
century exegetes examining the writings of ancient authors is far greater.
Therefore, one must make an effort to become aware of the mentalities of
biblical antiquity.
In keeping with the mentalities of the biblical
authors, one should keep in mind that the text was shaped by their personal
interests, experiences and problems. As
R. H. Stein notes, “the meaning of a text depends on the specific conscious
will of the author” (1997: 38), and an awareness of this calls for the added
awareness of the ideological nature of the Bible. For example, Habel et al propose in their book The Land
is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies (1995) that “any appropriation of
these concepts of land in debates about the contemporary issues demands that we
first take into account the ideological force of the text being considered”
(pg. 3). It is also stressed that
adequate attention should be given to the particular ideological or theological
thrust of the literary context of individual words in exegetical practice. A biblical author’s motivation in wanting to
communicate with his or her audience may have been quite different on separate
occasions. For instance, an author’s
motivation may have been to inform, encourage, praise, admonish, complain, or
blame, amongst other things, and this calls for examination of the relationship
between the author and his or her intended readership.
The interpreter plays a large role in the
hermeneutical process. No exegete
approaches Scripture without presuppositions about the text he or she is
interpreting. As an exercise in
assessing one’s “disinterest” as an interpreter, the re-reading of the Bible is
effective as it highlights the subjective process by its results—the perceived
meaning of the text sometimes changes.
In light of this, the pretence of academic neutrality or objectivity
should be abandoned (Barton, 1998: 13) but at the same time our presuppositions
should at least be consistent (Best, 1978: 99).
Probably the most important presupposition employed
by biblical interpreters is their preconceived idea about the nature of the
Bible. For instance, Brown (1997:
29-34) examines the general positions with regards to divine inspiration and
revelation. Many interpreters regard
references to divine inspiration as totally inappropriate in scholarly study;
others make divine inspiration so dominant a factor in interpretation that the
limitations of human authors become irrelevant; and others take an intermediate
position by accepting divine inspiration as important for interpretation, but
assert at the same time that God’s role as author did not bypass human
limitations.
The question about divine inspiration is held to be
crucial by some because they believe Scripture to be fundamental to God’s
revelation to mankind. Once again we
are met with a number of different positions regarding divine revelation. Some afford no role in interpretation to
revelation, and assess truth mostly through logic rather than faith; others
believe that every word of Scripture constitutes a divine communication of
truth; and some contend that Scripture is not revelation but contains it. Of course there are those who assert that divine
inspiration has no validity, and some who deny divine revelation
absolutely.
Whereas the questions of inspiration and revelation
are linked to the subject of biblical inerrancy, there are other ways in which
the Bible is perceived (Engelbrecht et al, 2000: 78-79). Some describe the Bible as a reflection of
religious ideas by certain people, in that socio-political issues were
addressed from a religious perspective in which a god had a significant role. Others think of the Bible as a collection of
texts documenting God’s activity in history and humanity’s response to that
activity. And finally, there are those
who ascribe only a literary role to the Bible, focussing on artistic and
aesthetic merit.
In conclusion, it is clear that biblical interpretation
is faced with issues that have a fundamental impact on the meaning discerned
from Scripture. The interpreter needs
to deal with the various exegetical methods, the gap between antiquity and
modernity, the contextuality and ideological role of the Bible, and most
importantly, his or her own presuppositions about the very nature of the Bible.
Bibliography
·
The Anchor Bible Dictionary.
Doubleday, New York. 1992.
·
Barton, J (Ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation.
Cambridge University Press. 1998.
·
Best, Earnest. From Text to Sermon: Responsible
Use of the New Testament in Preaching. John Knox. Atlanta. 1978.
·
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New
Testament. Doubleday, New York. 1997.
·
Deist, F.E., Burden, J.J. An ABC of Biblical Exegesis. J.L van
Schaik. Pretoria. 1989
·
Engelbrecht, J; Kretzschmar, L; Nel, W; Theron, J.K;
Veldsman, D. Invitation to Theology.
University of South Africa Press. Pretoria. 2000
·
König, Adrio; Maimela, Simon (Eds). Initiation
Into Theology: The Rich Variety of Theology and Hermeneutics. J L van
Schaik, Pretoria. 1998.
·
Habel, Norman C., Breuggemann, Walter. The Land is
Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies. Fortress Press. 1995.
·
Hayes, John H. Introduction to the Bible. Westminster Press,
Philadelphia. 1971.
·
McQuilkin, Robertson. Understanding and Applying the Bible. Moody
Publishers. 1992.
·
Milton, Terry S. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the
Interpretation of the Old and New Testament. Wipf & Stock. 1999.
