Joshua SciarrinoLast name; “Sure-Reno”

Bible Hermeneutics Essay & Biblical Exegesis Essay - Presuppositions/AssumptionsFiled Under: Book Reviews, Jesus Stuff

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Disclaimer: I just want to let everyone know, this is an essay I turned in for my Bible Hermeneutics class and yes, I’m in Bible College. BH stands for the methods to study the bible. I hope you read this and that it stretches your mind.

The main point of this essay is to describe presuppositions and assumptions that we bring to the task of hermeneutics.  In a lot of ways, after Reformation, it brings this issue to the front of the debates.  Since now, if you’re a Protestant, we view the Bible as our center and not counsels nor popes, we have a different problem now, and it’s one’s hermeneutical duties that are scrutinized.  It’s the lens through which we read all of Scripture or any text for that matter.  Personally, the best way to view presuppositions is to look at them as a blended-worldview.  When I write ‘blended-worldview’ I’m talking about a lens, through which we understand everything, that we each possess, like the concept of a worldview but also takes into account the fact that no one has ‘just a Christian worldview’ or ‘just a humanistic worldview’ but instead each of us has a collection of different worldviews mixed together to make, what I called, ‘blended-worldview’.

Our hermeneutical task is to take off these ‘blended-worldviews’ and read the Scripture as best we can, without bringing our biases to the text. Although this is easier said than done, it’s still our responsibility to do this to the best of our knowledge and understanding at the time of our work and never forgetting to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit.   To encourage and aid in training ourselves to take off these ‘lens’ is a good guideline that Fee and Stuart suggest, “A text cannot mean what it never meant.” [1] This suggestion has every intension to give us boundaries in our task of hermeneutics. It isn’t a bad thing to restrict us in this way, just like it’s not wrong to box in a child when he is very young, but when he reaches maturity he/she is allowed to roam free, but not until that point.

Another concern or issue when it comes to the topic of assumptions that we bring to the text is the translation itself. Now with over 50 translations, in 35 languages available at the click of my mouse [2] and hundreds more, it’s absolutely necessary to pick a ‘good’ translation.  I think both of our textbooks outline that there are 3 types of translations, or one of 3 categories that every translation would fall under.  There is the ‘Word-for-word’, ‘blended’ and ‘thought for thought’ translation. Each category is based on a different view of the inspiration of the text, questions like ‘Is it the literal words that are inspired, or the thoughts behind the words?’ help one understand the translators philosophy behind their word choices throughout Scripture, which aids our hermeneutical task because we now have the ability to use different translations and make judgments accordingly.  If you feel you need only one translation hear this warning from our text, “The trouble with using only one translation, be it ever so good, is that you are thereby committed to the exegetical choices of that translation as the Word of God.” [3] Also, if you like only ‘work-for-word’ translations, I hope this statement helps open your mind to other concepts about Scripture, ”A second problem with a literal translation is that it often makes the English ambiguous, where the Greek or Hebrew was quite clear to the original recipients.” [4] I also really enjoyed the interview with the NLT Translator because it gave me a different side to argument of scholarship.  The man sounded passionate about his work about linguistics, words and all that stuff that would make me fall asleep, if I did it.  He said something very convicting and struck me to the core “Our scholarship should serve the church.” [5] I never had a ‘high’ view of those in the scholarship fields, such as Greek and Hebrew experts, OT and NT experts, cultural anthropologist, etc, because I used to think “No one that smart, or educated, can know God.”  How naive of me, but praise God that He renews our mind and molds it into the mind of Christ, day after day.

I have a very high view of Scriptural authority but speaking from the Scriptures we must have some guidelines to live within.  We don’t want to preach a ‘different gospel’ [6] nor speak of a ‘different doctrine’ [7] neither lead people to a different Jesus [8].  So their must be some guidelines.  Although our Biblical Interpretation textbook [9] shares mainly the same guidelines, I really enjoyed how our other book conveyed the same concepts. First off, we should depend upon God for the interpretation and message He wants us to give to His people, through prayer and fasting.  Second, we need to ‘exegete’ the scripture, finding out ‘what the text meant to its original recipients’ [10], this can be done with commentaries or bible dictionaries. Third, we should read the entire book in a few sittings, if not all at once, to get the ‘larger’ view of the text [11]. Those three guidelines should give anyone a great start in completing a hermeneutical task, in any book.

Aside from those, when looking at the Biblical text, we must understand it was written from a different mindset than our Greco-Roman understanding.  We are very ‘step-by-step’ in our thinking, where the Hebrew’s thought in a ‘thought-by-thought’ concept.  One way to understand this is that Hebrew’s rhymed thoughts not words, when it came to poetry.  With all this said, I think a strong guideline would be to continually ask this one question, “What’s the point?” [12].

Now, when approaching certain types of genres of writing, there are more specific guidelines. Other than the general guidelines I outlined above, Fee and Stuart say, when approaching the Biblical Letters, “Despite some uncertainty as to some of the precise details, one need to learn to ask what can be said for certain about a text and what is merely possible but not certain.” [13] So, things aren’t as ‘black and white’ as one would think, and we should be open to that and receive this.  Another type of genre is the Old Testament narrative. Also, more than ’40 percent of the OT is narrative’ [14] so it’s very important to understand this type of biblical genre. Fee and Stuart say there are 3 levels of narratives such as the ‘meta-narrative’, ‘the story of God’s redeeming a people for his name’, and ‘all individual narratives’ [15].  I like to think of it as a ‘space-view’, ‘bird’s eye-view’ and ‘the view from land’. It’s not like one is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ just different perceptions that overlap and intertwine. Some things to be careful of when reading narratives are the tendencies to ‘allegorize the text’ or ‘find “hidden meanings” and thinking that the stories are trying to directly teach us ‘moral lessons’ [16].  The stories may or may not be trying to teach us moral lessons but this guideline is trying to stay away from assuming things in the text, so the best way to break down those assumptions is ‘taking a step back’, which I think this guideline is trying to do. Finally, the last genre that this section of reading had was the Gospels.  I think if I understood Hebrew logic to a greater depth, I’d be able to give a better bases and guideline for the over-lapping effect of the gospel but either way, I’ll still try to do my best.  One guideline to always keep in mind when reading the four gospels is that “none of the gospels supersedes the other, but each stands beside the others as equally valuable and equally authoritative.” [17] I like to think of all four gospels together make a beautiful painting but each one individually make up only one color of the entire piece of art.  The author’s put it this way, “Nonetheless, the fact that God has provided four gospels in the canon means that they cannot be read totally in isolation from one another.” [18] Also, a good example of this is in the description of the Olives Discourse [19]. Plus, I think it’s safe to say that Matthew and Mark have strong commonalities, maybe even ‘one read the other?’ or as the author puts it they have a ’60 percent agreement in the words used, often in the exact word order’ [20].

Sources:
1. Gordon D. Fee, Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan. 2003 [Referred as ‘Fee’] pg. 30
2. http://www.biblegateway.com/
3. Fee pg.33
4. Fee pg. 43
5. Audio Interview with NLT Translator
6. Gal. 1:6
7. 1 Tim. 6:3
8. 2 Cor. 11:4
9. Klein, Bloomberg, Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson. 2000
10. Fee pg. 58
11. Fee pg. 60
12. Fee pg. 27
13. Fee pg. 69
14. Fee pg. 89
15. Fee pg. 91
16. Fee pg. 92
17. Fee pg. 129
18. Fee pg. 135
19. Fee pg. 138
20. Fee pg. 137