Frank Turk offers an example of why hermeneutics (what/how we extract meaning from text) is important. I’ll offer a quote to spur discussion:
It is curious, to say the least, that many Americans read the Bible and claim to understand what its authors mean. For early Christian authors and their audiences were radically different from contemporary US Bible readers in the way they though of persons. Americans inevitably consider persons individualistically, as psychologically unique beings. [...] in fact, first-century Mediterranean persons never thought psychologically in the way we do. Even speaking of those human beings as “persons” is somewhat of an anachronism since there is no word for “person” in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. [...]
First-century Mediterraneans knew other people “socially,” in terms of gender-based roles, in terms of the groups in which the person was ever embedded, and with constant concern for public rewards of respect and honor.
From The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels by Bruce J. Malina. I’ve only read the first few chapters so far, but its a fascinating read, applying linguistics and social anthropology to Biblical hermeneutics.
March 11th, 2010 | 8:46 pm | #1
This is somewhat along the lines of what I have tried to argue . . .
March 11th, 2010 | 8:53 pm | #2
Can I just say, out of a little frustration, that these quotations are tough to deal with unless one has read the book.
You cannot engage an author based on a quotation. The response is always, well, there’s more to it than that to which I want to cuss aloud and then ask for sanctification.
March 11th, 2010 | 9:14 pm | #3
“For early Christian authors and their audiences were radically different from contemporary US Bible readers…”
It’s almost trite to affirm this as true. But the question is, to what magnitude and consequence. The most important fact to bare in mind, is that, in an important, even existential degree, the early Christian authors are not a THEM but part of an US. Yes certainly a large and diverse US, but still an US because the Church forms an organic, catholic (with a small ‘c’) cohesion. The Bible wasn’t dug up whole in a archeological dig somewhere. The meaning of the words were written, understood, and have developed with the Church to whom they were given, in whom there have been lived, i.e. fleshed out.
March 12th, 2010 | 12:14 am | #4
Pastor,
An example: Examine self denial, e.g., “let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” and several others.
Yet, what does “self” mean for a person within a collective/family based honor/shame patron/supplicant society? It means something very different than what it means to you and me. Denial of self is at the very least mean not personal ascetic struggle but instead primarily a denial of one’s family, which in turn meant far more to them than it does in modern fractured family filled America.
Protestants claim that they don’t rely on “tradition” but hew to Scripture “alone.” Yet, that pre-supposes a hermeneutic. The default “plain” reading of the text by an American individualist is going to be radically different from the “plain” reading as received by Jesus audience.
My main thrust is that hermeneutics are both important and a non-trivial undertaking.
Dale,
I think (note the last sentence above) my point can be taken without resorting to “more and more” of the book.
March 12th, 2010 | 9:18 am | #5
Thanks for the post, Mark. That book looks interesting. And I could not agree more with you that hermeneutics are important for our understanding of Scripture.
March 12th, 2010 | 9:19 am | #6
Yes, yes, if only the Holy Spirit had of thought of Americans when He penned His book we might be able to delve into its hidden mysteries. Instead, we are hampered by thousands of years and impenetrable cultural milieu. Indeed, we cannot ever really recapture these cultures because they are dead. We don’t have a single living informant. Only uninspired texts to tell us how we think they acted and thought.
Or, on the other hand, it could be that the Holy Spirit is a better author than we think, and He did think about Americans when He wrote. So, perhaps all that we need to understand the Bible is in the Bible itself. I deny that I have to understand first century Palestinian customs and culture to understand the Scriptures. What I need, I find in Scripture.
March 12th, 2010 | 9:44 am | #7
Thanks Mark. Now that I have found my sanctified self again, I am better. It was a momentary lapse. I appreciate the point.
March 12th, 2010 | 10:08 am | #8
Mark Olson: “From The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels by Bruce J. Malina. I’ve only read the first few chapters so far, but its a fascinating read, applying linguistics and social anthropology to Biblical hermeneutics.”
Brad Williams: “I deny that I have to understand first century Palestinian customs and culture to understand the Scriptures.”
Brad, I don’t think you’d deny that it’s helpful, would you?
FWIW, I use the grammatical-historical method of hermeneutics.
March 12th, 2010 | 10:09 am | #9
“The default ‘plain’ reading of the text by an American individualist is going to be radically different from the “plain” reading as received by Jesus audience.”
Are there any other specific teachings that American individualists interpret radically differently? You earlier gave the example of denying oneself, but I’m having trouble finding the real difference between the interpretations. Wouldn’t both American Individualists and first century Mediterranean Collectivists agree that “denying oneself and taking up a cross” means to renounce your earlier identity (whether as individual or part of a community) and make Jesus and His kingdom the primary focus of it, even if that leads to suffering?
Are there any other prominent examples from the book?
March 12th, 2010 | 10:32 am | #10
TUAD,
To be honest, I regret the snarkiness of my comment. It was not neccesary to make my point. This is a soap box issue for me.
I believe that history can be a stumbling block to exegesis just as often as it might be helpful. The only thing we have that is reliable is Scripture, and whatever historical background we will need to understand the passage will be given in Scripture.
I’m reading a book now by John Sailhamer called, “The Meaning of the Pentateuch.” He has a fantastic chapter in it called “What is the ‘Historical Meaning’ of Biblical Texts?” That chapter alone is worth the price of the book. He deals with this very issue and examines Johann Ernesti’s understand of the grammatical-historical method. Very good stuff.
March 12th, 2010 | 10:40 am | #11
It helps immensely to see that this discussion started because JMR has forwarded the political theory that government’s primary limiter ought to be the liberty of the individual, and I have said that the Bible would say otherwise. As we consider this new light shead on this subject by JMR, let’s remember that, in his view, “liberty” is a “good thing” which government has an obligation to somehow either resist opressing or somehow multiplying. That is where we started, but now we are here talking about whether the concept of a “person” is somehow psychologically-available to someone from 30 AD.
So let’s assume this is true:
As I read this as “somewhat along the lines of what [JMR has]tried to argue”, I think of this from his recent front-page post:
Just think about the juxtaposition of these two statements for a minute. In the latter case, JMR has plainly said: freedom was not an issue for the ancients because they were essentially “free” — lots of liberty by default. But in the quotation from the post JMR has made here, plainly we have to reconsider what he’s saying — because the author of this statement has completely decimated the idea that we can assume those people even thought of “persons” who would require “liberty”.
That is: to cite this passage to say, “well, they didn’t really think of ‘freedom’ because they didn’t think of themselves psychologically/politically as ‘persons’” doesn’t do anything but cut the legs off the argument that freedom was a basic assumption for these people.
And further, we have the problem John 8 presents to the sociological picture the academic source presents to us. I’m sure many of you remember this passage:
Doesn’t that strike anyone as odd that Christ will tell the Jews here about their bondage in sin using a word that means ‘not bound by personal obligation’?
The framework for the argument is frankly not convincing me. However, I’m sure I’m mistaken. Let’s please find out how and why.
March 12th, 2010 | 4:13 pm | #12
This inability is not limited to Americans.
“no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation”
Whereupon some people demonstrate its truth by claiming it means only that scripture is inspired because scripture’s inspiration is cited as the reason why you can’t interpret it.
March 13th, 2010 | 10:32 am | #13
There are creeds written in Greek and Latin that have terms for “person”. So there obviously is a word in Greek and a word in Latin that mean “person”.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact