1. This is the usual way literature is interpreted.
2. All secondary meanings depend upon previous objective literal sense.
3. Large part of the Bible makes sense this way.
4. Exercises a control on the imagination.
Both liberals and conservatives can manipulate scripture to serve their purposes. W. L. King cancelled a speaker because he had grown a beard. When asked if he would have cancelled Moses,
Aaron, Moody, or Finney, King replied if he was living in the days of Aaron, Moses and the old timers, perhaps I would permit such. However, he argues that since beards became a symbol of rebellion during the hippie era that he could not permit men with
face hair in his pulpit.(11) It is ironic that King pines for the old fashioned way with the exception of cultural issues that we
handles by employing the liberal hermeneutic. The principle of the sufficiency of Scripture would say that if beards were a moral issue the Bible would have spoken to the issue. Since it did not, they are a non-issue and every man must be fully persuaded in his own mind (Romans 14:5).
5. Historical - Critical
In the Wesleyan Theological Journal, George Lyons wrote "Hermeneutical Bases for Theology: Higher Criticism and the Wesleyan Interpreter."(12)
Lyons argues that since Wesley incorporated the contemporary Biblical criticism of his day, he should serve as an example for us, and Wesleyan interpreters today must become familiar with the
current methods, results, and practice of "higher criticism." Lyons conceded that "we cannot uncritically swallow all its naturalistic and rationalistic assumptions, but neither can we
ignore its more numerous values." While we will at least become aware of some current developments, I feel they have made very little contribution to the field of biblical interpretation
because all of their "contributions" are tainted by a liberal bias. In 1963 Robert Brush, of the Fundamental Wesleyan Society, traveled to Marion, IN to express his concerns over the influence of higher criticism in Wesleyan Sunday School literature with the leadership of the Wesleyan Church.
a. The origin and spread of higher criticism
In the 17th century, German secular universities approached Scripture with a rationalistic attitude. They taught the universe is ruled by set laws which cannot be suspended or altered and therefore miracles were impossible. The idea that God spoke or
intervened was dismissed.
Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) developed an elaborate system of sources for the Pentateuch called JEDP or source criticism.
F. C. Baur (1792-1860) handled the New Testament in a similar way. Baur saw Peter and Paul as antagonistic to one another in their writings. Baur believed that the second century church wrote most of the New Testament, which were doctored, and that
these writings differed greatly from the historical Jesus.
John Wesley was abreast with current developments in biblical scholarship. A. Skevington Wood, who also wrote The Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), said that while it is fashionable to dismiss Wesley's conservative approach to Scripture saying that he lived in pre-critical times and had be been alive today would have adopted more liberal
views, fails to take into account that Wesley was conscious of the beginning of the development of higher criticism -yet did not embrace it.(13) "To classify Wesley as a 'critical' scholar represents a vain
attempt to 'modernize' him."(14) Wesley was not impressed with the critics of his day.
 |
It would be excusable if these menders of the Bible would offer their hypotheses modestly. But one cannot excuse them when they not only obtrude their novel scheme, with the utmost confidence, but even ridicule that scriptural one which always was and is now held by men of the greatest learning and piety in the world. Hereby they promote the cause of infidelity more effectually than either Hume or Voltaire (Wesley's Journal, 8 August 1773). |
|
In the eighteenth century science adopted Enlightenment philosophy which categorically ruled out the possibility of miracles. They sought a natural explanation for all things and
exchanged their belief in a Creator God for the theory of evolution. For the first time science was pitted against scripture and historic Christianity was perceived as being behind the times.
Until the nineteenth century, it was left to heretics outside the Church to question the integrity of the Scriptures. The Word of God claimed to be inspired by God and the message of the Bible was internally consistent with that claim. This divine
inspiration was confirmed by fulfilled prophecy and by miracles. The Church recognized the same Scriptures as did the Jewish religion, plus the writings of the apostles were also recognized as being authoritative and were placed on an equal basis with the Old Testament Scriptures.
In an effort to reconcile science and Scripture, liberal theologians tended to re-interpret Scripture in the light of scientific theory. While their motive may have been the desire to address modern questions which were being raised, they made so many concessions they actually betrayed the faith.
Instead of concentrating on the biblical text, the trend was to develop naturalistic theories as to how the text came into being. Source criticism assumed that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not actually write the gospels which bear their names.
Instead, eyewitness accounts were passed on orally for a generation. Some were embellished or modified over the passage of time. Then these eyewitness accounts were gathered, edited, and written down in a document called Quelle or Q. None of the critics have ever seen this document called Q, but it is assumed
that the editors who compiled Matthew, Mark, and Luke all drew from this source and altered the material to address needs within the early Church. Thus the higher critics had more faith in a Q document they have never seen than in the Word of God which they held in their hands. All this offers very little help in
interpretation of Scripture.
This same "cut and paste" approach to the Scriptures produced the documentary hypothesis which explained the five books of Moses were actually written by four different sources and later pieced together into its present form a thousand years after
Moses. Thus the Pentateuch is not regarded as historically accurate, but a natural product of the Jewish religion.
It is interesting that the massive, twelve-volume Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, published
between 1867-1887, did not have an article on Bible Criticism. However, at the end of the second volume and out of alphabetical order, a two-page supplementary article on criticism is inserted.
I believe this demonstrates the point in time when continental liberalism began to influence American theology.
When Hinckley G. Mitchell of Boston University School of Theology questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the Methodist bishops brought charges against him. The proceedings went on for ten years, from 1895 to 1905, but eventually Mitchell
was removed from his position.(15)
In Britain the Methodists were the most consistently
conservative on Scripture and acceptance of the new criticism came more slowly than among the Baptists, Congregationalists, or Presbyterians in the decades before World War I. Wesley had promoted in Britain both a learned study of the Bible and an
intense interest in the Spirit. Evangelicals were not forced to choose between the two.
Prior to 1913 Charles H. Fowler, a Methodist bishop, said, "It may seem a severe thing for a Methodist bishop, and one who has been president of one of our largest universities to say, but nevertheless I believe it to be true that the schools and
universities of the Methodist Episcopal Church belong more to the devil to-day than they do to our Church."(16)
However, it is ironic that C. Leslie Mitton, who expressed a wonderful grasp of Wesleyan theology in A Clue to Wesley's Sermons, could be caught up in higher criticism to the extend he even denied Paul wrote Ephesians and Peter wrote 1 Peter.
b. Subsequent developments
1. Form criticism
After source criticism fragmented the entire Bible, form criticism built upon this unproven assumption. Form criticism, which dominated scholarship in the first half of the twentieth
century, attempted to reconstruct each independent unit between the oral traditions and the written Word of God as we now have it. It was assumed that the Church created legends, tales, myths,
and parables to meet particular needs which existed at the time. This places the church in authority over the Word since the word of God was claimed to have been carried orally before the church wrote it down. What is overlooked is that the authority is not
vested in who wrote it down, but who spoke it!
The Bible was regarded as a piece of propaganda created by the Church to serve its own interests. They emphasize the "sitz im lebem" or the life situation that produced writing. Form criticism, applied to Charles Wesley's hymns might lead to the
conclusion that they were really beer drinking songs. It is legitimate to consider the culture and circumstances surrounding the writing so long as we do not conclude that the inspired
account was fabricated or embellished to serve a certain purpose. Liberals always forget that part of the life situation which produced the writing was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Rudolf Bultmann, one of the most famous form critics, attempted to strip away the mythology that he claimed had developed about Jesus and when Bultmann had finished he ended up with only forty
brief sayings he considered genuine. The myth was considered a vehicle for expressing the reality. The ideal is transcendent and must be abstracted from the text.
C. S. Lewis, who was an authority in medieval literature, expressed his skepticism with biblical criticism:
|
1. These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim
to see fern-seed and can't see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight. |
|
2. All theology of the liberal type involves at some point - and often involves throughout - the claim that the real behavior and purpose and teaching of Christ came very rapidly to be misunderstood and misrepresented by His followers, and has been
recovered or exhumed only by modern scholars.
|
|
3. I find in these theologians a constant use of the principle that the miraculous does not occur.... I only want to point out that this is a purely philosophical question. Scholars, as scholars, speak on it with no more authority than anyone else.... On this they speak simply as men; men obviously influenced
by, and perhaps insufficiently critical of, the spirit of the age they grew up in.
|
|
4. All this sort of criticism attempts to reconstruct the genesis of the texts it studies; what vanished documents each author used, when and where he wrote, with what purposes, under what influences - the whole Sitz im Leben of the text. This is
done with immense erudition and great ingenuity. And at first sight it is very convincing.... What forearms me against all these Reconstructions is the fact that I have seen it all from the other end of the stick. I have watched reviewers reconstruction the genesis of my own books in just this way. Until you come to be reviewed yourself you would never believe
how little of an ordinary review is taken up by criticism in the strict sense: by evaluation, praise, or censure, of the book actually written. Most of it is taken up with imaginary histories of the process by which you wrote it.... Reviewers, both friendly and hostile, will dash you off such histories with great
confidence; will tell you what public events had directed the author's mind to this or that, what other authors had influenced him, what his over-all intention was, what sort of audience he
principally addressed, why - and when - he did everything.... My impression is that in the whole of my experience not one of these guesses has on any one point been right; that the method shows a record of 100 per cent failure.... Dr. Bultmann never
wrote a gospel. Has the experience of his learned, specialized, and no doubt meritorious, life really given him any power of seeing into the minds of those long dead men who were caught up into what, on any view, much be regarded as the central religious
experience of the whole human race? It is no incivility to say - he himself would admit - that he must in every way be divided from the evangelists by far more formidable barriers - spiritual as well as intellectual - than any that could exist between my
reviewers and me.(17) |
2. Neo-orthodoxy
Starting with Karl Barth in 1918, criticized the excesses of liberalism. However, he put the emphasis on revelation and not the trustworthiness of Scripture. For neo-orthodoxy, the
Scriptures contain error, but they point to Christ. The Bible then is only a fallible witness. The Bible contains the record of past revelations and the promise of future revelations, but I
receive the Word of God only when God speaks to me and I respond. "The Bible itself is not the primary form of revelation, but it
contains the testimony of the primary witnesses to God's revelation."(18) Thus the Scripture is read existentially. Modern
theologians such as Paul Tillich teach an existentialism which says that human experience is not describable in scientific or rational terms. Tongues then becomes a non-rational experience or a "leap in the dark." Oral Roberts said that Tillich greatly
influenced his going to the Methodist Church.(19)
1. Denies that Bible is the Word of God; claims it becomes the Word when God speaks to a man and he responds. This is more a description of intuition than it is revelation.
2. Only that part of the Bible which witnesses to Christ is binding, and the seat of authority for deciding this is in man's mind.
3. Many Bible episodes are treated mythologically - as having serious theological principles but not as having literally occurred.
4. The Bible is a witness to the Word of God, but God reveals Himself in acts, not in words. The Word of God is personal, not propositional. Christ is God's revelation; the Bible is only a fallible human record of that revelation.
Carl F. H. Henry surveyed Barth's method of interpreting Scripture and asked, "Are we doomed to hermeneutical nihilism?" Henry concluded, "We must insist that ideally the interpreter shares the objective meaning of the inspired biblical writers as
expressed in conceptual-verbal form; we must repudiate recent notions of the historicity of understanding as destructive not only of the normativity of any and all communication but as self-destructive."(20) Henry is saying that liberal hermeneutics can get so subjective
that it loses all meaning and concludes that the Bible has no meaning. Albrecht Ritschl taught in the late nineteenth century that religious statements were not statements of truth but "value judgments." The next trend was that we should not speak of the truth in a text but only of "meaning." Then it was advocated that
we cannot talk of meaning, but only of "reading." When this generation, who never learned to read, become scholars the text will be unintelligible!
3. Redaction Criticism
The next theory to gain popularity was redaction criticism (coined by Willi Marxsen in 1954). The focus moved to the redactors or editors who picked and chose what material would be interwoven to create the biblical accounts and what motivated
these editors to select the material which we now have. This is like playing Jeopardy - you are given the answer and have to deduce the question. This draws the interpreter away from the text to guessing what motivated the editor. This approach can
only be used where similar documents can be compared. Thus redaction criticism operates primarily in the Gospel accounts and in the OT between Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. It is assumed that different church situations produced different accounts.
There may be literary dependance, but in humility we could never announce that fact with complete certainty. However, once again redaction criticism gives very little input in terms of the
meaning of the final text. While there was selectivity and arrangement of events by gospel writers, there was not modification and creativity.
"Midrash" is a literary genre which allows for embellishment - a mixture of historical literature and fabrication to prove or emphasize a particular point. The Talmud, a commentary on the Mishnah gave rules of exegesis. There would be the citation of
text, an explanation following which majors on application of the text to the situation of the interpreter, citation of opinions of
the rabbis, word plays as a means of interpretation.
Those who claim the biblical writers utilized midrash are saying the human authors of scripture did creative editing in adding fictional embellishment and unhistorical fabrication in order to fulfill theological intentions. However, there could not be
creation or invention of events that did not occur.(21)
4. The Jesus Seminar
A recent development in the evolution of the liberal's Bible is the work of the Jesus Seminar. They published their five gospels in 1993, which included the Gospel of Thomas, an unreliable collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus which was found in Egypt in 1945. The Five Gospels put the words they have concluded
did not come from Christ in black. Words in gray mean He did not say it in this form. Pink means it is close to what He said and red are the actual words of Christ as determined by a majority vote of 74 scholars. Only 20% of all the words of Christ end up red and many of those came from the Gospel of Thomas. Newsweek (8 April, 1996) described the ambiguous method used: "They apply the critical tools of today: text chopping, psychological speculation
and colleague-bashing. And then they take leaps of faith, often of their own creation" (p. 62).
However, Robert L. Thomas observed that while evangelicals have reacted to the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar, they have adopted a similar methodology advocating a literary dependance
among biblical authors.(22)
5. Narrative criticism
It is recognized that too much emphasis was placed on the process of writing the Bible and not enough interest in the finished product. Childs maintains that critical study has not got to grips with the true nature of the material. David Bauer also concluded source criticism, form criticism, and redaction
criticism have contributed little to the advancement of our understanding of the message.(23)
There is a trend to treat the Bible as literature, not a scientific approach which attempts to reconstruct the historical development of the text. There is a new concentration on the test itself rather than on authors, intentions and historical
contexts.
Narrative criticism looks at the narrative passages by looking for the plot, characters, time, and literary relationships between sections. It would pay attention to repetition, contrast, comparison, climax, statements of purpose, summarization, questions, interchange.
This can be legitimate provided we understand we are studying non-fiction literature. The groundwork was laid by Robert Traina in Methodical Bible Study.
6. Postmodernism
|
The postmodern evangelical critique of hermeneutical criticism
stands poised to speak of the normative canon and the plain sense of Scripture, resisting speculative fashion of redaction and form criticism and reader-response theories and sociopragmatic contextualizations that tyrannize and nonchalantly rape the text.... The classic evangelical hermeneutic trusts the apostolic primitive rememberers more than contemporary ideologically motivated advocacy deconstructionists with wild imaginations.
|
Thomas Oden advocates we enter the fray and expose the liberal agenda for what it is - even if we have to bear the epithet of "fundamentalist," like the Jews who wore the Star of David in Nazi Germany.(24)
Brevard S. Childs had proposed a method that begins with the Old Testament as we now have it. Its authority is that it is accepted by the community of faith. Without abandoning higher criticism, he seeks to interpret the text for today, instead of
being interested in what their authors meant by them. In this he seems to be doing what Oden has done theologically. Yet they are putting the authority in the church instead of the book. The problem is not solved by the fact that the Church canonized the
Scripture. By what authority did the Church declare this body of literature to be authoritative? God spoke and the church simply recognized the unique quality of His revelation. In "Back to the Bible (Almost)," Roger E. Olson told this story.
|
It took quite a while for me to discern that the pastor of the church we were attending was theologically liberal. That was because he preached stirring, biblically based sermons and delivered meticulous Bible studies. I gradually began to detect,
however, that he did not necessarily believe that the "truth" of the biblical stories he loved to explore and explain had any connection with objective time-and-space history. During a private conversation one Sunday morning, he revealed his true hermeneutical impulses to me: "You know," he stated, "I don't
really think it matters whether any of these beautiful stories of the Bible describe what actually happened. All that really matters is their transforming power in people's lives." My family and I left that church within weeks.(25)
|
c. Evaluation of higher criticism
George Eldon Ladd concluded, "The historical-critical method is not an adequate method to interpret the theology of the New Testament because its presuppositions limit its findings to the
exclusion of the central biblical message."(26)
While liberals ask if there is some religious meaning in the text not dependant on the literal, historical interpretation - the problem is that each interpretation will be subjective and
not authoritative
1. It is rationalistic
2. Inspiration and the supernatural are both defined
3. Evolutionary concepts are imposed upon the religion of Israel.
4. Accommodation presupposition erases much bible doctrine
John Barton in summarizing the new criticism concluded "it seems clear to me that traditional historical-critical approaches to the Bible will have to be abandoned.(27)
L. W. Munhall reminded us at the turn of the century that Christ and the Holy Spirit are the highest critics of the text and they consistently refer to it as the Word of God. He quoted a Dr.Leacock:
|
Accepting the judgment of the Critics, we have before us two alternatives regarding Jesus: He was either ignorant of the facts, and hence taught error under a misapprehension; or else He knew the facts, and knowingly taught what was false, and thus
helped to fasten a fraud and a lie upon His nation and His after Church.
It is impossible to accept the first of these suppositions. He to whom the Spirit was given without measure - He who needed not that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in man - He who, before Abraham was born, had existence - He who was with the
Father from the beginning, and was before all things, He surely could not be ignorant of the true history of these books. If therefore we accept Jesus as the only begotten Son, and one with the Father, we must dismiss this first supposition concerning
Him.
We turn then to the other proposition, viz., that knowing the facts He suppressed them, and taught what He knew to be false, and linked Himself with those who had conspired to fasten upon the Jewish nation and upon the world, a fraud and a lie. Can this
be so? Is Jesus a fraud? Is he a liar? Then good-bye to His religion. If he is false in one particular, why not in all? We have no security. The foundations are swept away, for everything centers in Him and depends upon His truthfulness. If He is not "the truth," then our hope is gone. Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.
This is disaster overwhelming that these learned critics are trying to bring upon us. They remind us of poor blind Samson putting forth his strength to drag down the columns that supported the roof over his head. There is this difference - they know not what they do. Nor have they Samson's strength. We may
dismiss our fears, and still look to Jesus with unshaken confidence. "Heaven and earth shall pass away; but My words shall not pass away."(28)
|
Robert Bork wrote in The Tempting of America about the battle between lawyers who hold to the "original intent" school of constitutional interpretation and the "judicial activist" school.
Either the Constitution means what the framers meant to say or it means what we think it should mean. Beware of interpreters who admit they are at variance with Scripture, but assert that the Biblical writers would have agreed with them if they had been
enlightened. Where the implications of Scripture collide with modern culture many will cut and paste the Scriptures rather than rebuke the culture. The most blatant re-interpretation of Scripture currently underway is the justification of homosexuality. A close second is the re-interpretation of
Scripture to fit the radical feminist agenda (Paul's hierarchial statements were a product of his culture and if he were here today he would oppose female subordination).
Paul Bassett documents the fact that in the beginning the majority of early Nazarenes were fundamentalists and believed in an inerrant Scripture. But he observed that his church inherited two basically incompatible points of view with regard to the central issue of spiritual-theological authority.(29)
Harold Lindsell commented, "A house divided against itself cannot stand. The Church of the Nazarene should make plain which of the two incompatible viewpoints represents the church and its people.(30)
Elderly pastors from the former Soviet East block have
lamented, "The churches in Eastern Europe by the end of the First War had become merely a shell without any life. The teaching of higher criticism subverted our confidence in the Scriptures and we lost our witness."
It seems that while liberals have recognized the barrenness of higher criticism, conservatives have rushed headlong into it desiring academic respectability. Today not one Nazarene
professor in any Nazarene educational institution accepts the inerrancy of scripture. verify*
Statistically, the laity hold the Scripture in higher regard than their clergy. Potential pastors enter seminary to prepare for the ministry and are pumped full of critical theories about the Scriptures instead of actually giving themselves to the study
of God's Word. They graduate with an exposure to all the unproven theories about the Bible and little confidence left in the Scriptures themselves. The danger is that conservative Bible colleges, in their desire to gain academic respectability and
accreditation, import professors with impressive credentials from liberal institutions. Then these professors infect conservative denominations with the same skepticism which has killed the mainline churches and in the end the bible college is only a step
behind its liberal seminary counterpart.
When our pulpits are filled by pastors who have never settled the question as to whether their faith is in the inerrant Word of God or in the latest critical theory espoused by their professors, the congregation will hear an uncertain trumpet sounded.
Can a minister entertain serious doubts concerning God's Word and at the same time possess a strong personal assurance that he is saved? If we have grieved the Spirit of God by doubting the
Word which He inspired, how can we expect the Spirit to bear witness with our spirit? How can we test the spirits to see whether they are of God if we have no reliable touchstone?
Will a pastor-teacher who doubts the integrity of Scripture give himself to an expositional preaching ministry? Will a hungry congregation be fed the bread of life or will it be nourished on the cold stones of higher criticism?
Will God ever revive a church that does not trust and proclaim His Word? How can the Church provide moral guidance for a decant society when we are playing games instead of proclaiming the Word?
At the end of the twentieth century the church has become a sleeping giant and the Word of God is our undiscovered resource. While the world is desperately looking for answers, the church has been too intimidated to declare that God has spoken.
The Bible is authoritative because it comes from God. Over two thousands times the Bible declares "thus saith the Lord." While God's revelation was transmitted through human personality, the
purpose of divine inspiration was to insure that the words which were written accurately represented God's intention. God's perfect Word (Psalm 19:7) does not need to be re-written or re-interpreted to reflect current theological trends. Instead,
let us bring our theology in line with God's absolute standard of truth. God is looking for a group of people who will believe it and study it, who will preach it and live it. There is still
enough power in God's Word to transform the whole world.
VI. To What Extend Is Bible Criticism Legitimate? ((Back to the main outline))
A critic means to judge, to separate, to distinguish, to compare and evaluate. A critic weighs various interpretations and seeks to understand the proper meaning.
Literary criticism does not mean faultfinding, it means to evaluate. Biblical criticism does not have to be negative. It may mean an objective evaluation of the writing. It becomes negative when the Bible is approached with certain presuppositions. "Criticism means making intelligent judgments about historical, literary, textual, and philological questions
which one must face in dealing with the Bible."(31)
|
The conservatives saw themselves as critical scholars. They did not abandon criticism, for they, like most academics in nineteenth-century America, regarded the careful, inductive, scientific sifting of evidence as the royal road to truth. It was not criticism as such but what they perceived as prejudiced criticism, criticism corrupted by bias, unbelieving criticism, that they attacked.(32)
|
It is legitimate to use critical methods to establish which variant manuscript reading was the inspired original; it is illegitimate to use critical methods to call into question whether something in the original text is true. This is the distinction between lower and higher criticism.
Higher criticism deals with age, authorship, sources used, historically reliability = special introduction - all this can be legitimate, but the field dominated by liberals.
Textual criticism recovers the original text - lower criticism [Terry, chapter 7].
Adam Clarke was a pioneer in the field of lower criticism or today called textual criticism - the evaluation of various mss. Abel Stevens, a historian of American Methodism wrote of the influence of Adam Clarke's Commentary, "It may be said to have
initiated critical biblical studies among them."
In his "Preface" to the Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament Wesley states that the common English translation is not always correct, "And therefore I shall take the liberty, as occasion may require, to make here and there a small alteration." I have seen claims that he made 6500 corrections. W. B. Godbey claimed the King James Version had two thousand mistakes. He spoke favorably of the work of Westcott and Hort (Translation of the New Testament, "Prologue," p. 5). While Daniel Steele objected to this statement of Godbey's claiming it would shake the confidence of the people in their Bibles, Steele also advocated the Revised Bible as a replacement to the King James (Steele's Answers, pp. 41-2; 269-70). Over 200 words in KJV have changed their meaning since 1611.(33)
Some have objected that this procedure is subjective and have claimed God gave the textus receptus instead of an eclectic text.(34)
"Eclectic" means that each variant reading is examined or critiqued on its own merits.(35) The problem with claiming the Textus Receptus is the original autograph is that there are 18 editions of the Textus Receptus and no two of them agree.(36)
Actually the TR published 13 years after the 1611 KJV.
There are several variations taken by extremists:
1. KJV only - teach divine preservation or advanced revelation - the KJV is inerrantly inspired or that mistakes in the KJV are advance revelation or that the 1611 KJV was written in eternity past and that Abraham and Moses read from it.
2. Textus Receptus only - asserts the superiority of a specific Greek text - although the NKJV is based on same Greek text it is opposed by #1 advocates - the TR normally used today was first published in 1894. There are nearly 300 differences between the KJV and the Textus Receptus. Some of the most thorough
refutations of this position come from within the fundamentalist
camp.(37)
3. Majority Text - determines text by the number of mss which agree. This is invalid because we would expect there to be fewer of the older mss. and more later mss. The Majority text differs from the TR in 1838 instances.
The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley contains almost a hundred pages of textual variants in the writings of John Wesley, "Wesley's Text: Editions, Transmission, Presentation, and Variant Readings," (4:421-513).
When I became editor of The Arminian, realized we had three editions of our Statement of Faith and Purpose. I tried to determine the correct reading - ask the Convention for a clarification, then got a note pointing out an incorrect citation.
I own a copy of The Holman Illustrated Edition of The Holy Bible, published in 1976. It has a misprint in 1 Timothy 6:6, "Godliness with contentment is great pain." How would be determine this was an error in printing and not the correct reading?
How Much Variation Exists in Texts?
1. With the OT - relatively few variants
Gleason Archer comparing the Isaiah scroll found at the Dead Sea in 1947 which were a thousand years older than the earliest OT mss previously - found, "They provided to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 per cent
of the text. The 5 per cent variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."(38)
2. With the NT we have 5366 partial and complete mss copied by hand from the second through 15th c.
|
The proportion of words, virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt, is very great; no less than seven-eights of the whole. the remaining one-eighth formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities constitutes
the whole area of criticism. If the principles followed in this edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced.... We find that setting aside differences of orthography [spelling], the words in our opinion still subject to doubt make up about
one-sixtieth of the N. T. In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former so that the amount of what can in any sense be
called substantially a variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.(39)
|
This translates to less than half a page of a 500 page book. This would compute to 98.33 percent pure.(40) Not one variation affects an article of faith or a precept of
duty.
Where textual criticism ends, hermeneutics properly begins.
[Terry, ch 19]
VII. Principles of Interpretation
(Back to the main outline)
1. Clarity (or perspicuity) of scripture
"The word of God is plain in itself; and if there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, who is never contrary to Himself, explains the same more clearly in other places: so that there can remain no doubt, but to such as obstinately remain ignorant" (John Knox).
The Bible makes sense and can be understood through the application of our mind and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Wesley said, "We need the same Spirit to understand the Scripture which enabled the the holy men of old to write it" (11:509). The Word of God is spiritual and therefore can only be spiritually
perceived (1 Corinthians 2:14). Yet the Holy Spirit does not bypass our mind. This does not imply that a non-Christian is unable to understand the meaning of any Scripture. It means that without the Holy Spirit's work he will not welcome the message.
|
How to delineate how much or what part of Biblical Exegesis is attributable to mere human efforts and how much or what part comes from the Holy Spirit is difficult, if not impossible. Even an unenlightened unbeliever can glean some of the meaning if he follows correct procedure, but somewhere his efforts will go awry because he lacks spiritual insight. On the other hand, the enlightened believer will not, in most cases, be conscious of what has come from the Spirit as distinguished from what comes from the science of Exegesis. It will be the combined effect of the two that will bring him to the correct interpretation. Of course, he also needs the Spirit's guidance to apply the interpretation to life as it is now, but this is quite distinct from His help in illuminating the meaning of the passage in
reference to its original setting.
An analogous situation existed with the apostles of Christ. Their witness for Christ in one sense was on a purely natural plane as they told about what they had seen with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. But it was not just that. The Holy
Spirit also witnessed through them, and it was the combined effect of both that accomplished the purpose of their witnessing [see John 15:26-27] It is highly doubtful that the apostles were ever able to distinguish clearly what came form the Spirit from
what resulted from their personal experiences.
So it is in Exegesis. The guidance of the Spirit merges with a sane exercise of exegetical principles. He invariably utilizes accurate and normal rules of Hermeneutics in guiding a believer to the correct interpretation. Only He can give a proper
sensitivity in applying the rules. So the interpreter is ultimately dependent on Him for the right balance in them Grammatico-historical Method of Exegesis.(41) |
Where the Bible is not clear, obscure passages are interpreted in light of clear passages. There is an analogy of faith which means there is an internal consistency and harmony within Scripture. John Wesley commented on the "oracles of God"
|
that grand scheme of doctrine which is delivered therein, touching original sin, justification by faith, and present, inward salvation. There is a wonderful analogy between all these; and a close and intimate connection between the chief heads of that faith "which was once delivered to the the saints." Every article, therefore, concerning which there is any question should be determined by this rule; every doubtful scripture interpreted
according to the grand truths which run through the whole(Notes on Romans 12:6).
|
|
Sometimes in biblical studies the theology of Paul is pitted against that of Peter. This is an artificial dilemma. Mar cion may have been the first to depreciate the Old Testament, but not the last.
2. The sufficiency of Scripture
God has told us all we need to know. The Holy Spirit had the foresight to include revelation applicable to modern questions.
3. Revelation as accommodated
God revealed truth in ways we could grasp. John Calvin said in his comments on 1 Corinthians 2:7 that "He accommodates himself to our capacity." Any attempt to define God by human concepts apart from His accommodation is futile.(42) Anthropomorphism are not to be taken literally - God does not have a body. God adapted His truth to limited human understanding, but he did not accommodate Himself to human error. Revelation could have been -
And God said:
|
mv2/r = Ze2/r2
|
|
mvr=n h/2
|
|
r= r2h2/(2)2 mZe2
|
|
E = 1/2 mv2 - Ze2/r
|
|
E = 22mZ2e4/n2h2 = R
|
|
y
...and there was light. |
Liberals treat this concept differently - that God not only accommodated His revelation into a form that we could grasp, but that the matter or content was adapted. They say that God spoke in the culture of Bible times even when He knew they were in
error; thus He accommodated their superstitions, prejudices, and folklore. If God were writing today, however, He might say the exact opposite. God condescended to man's level to communicate with him, but He did not compromise truth.
Their emphasis on contextualization often results in subjective Bible interpretation which is simply a reflection of different cultural situations. The New Interpreter's Bible contains introductory articles:
- Reading the Bible as African Americans
- Reading the Bible as Asian Americans
- Reading the Bible as Hispanic Americans
- Reading the Bible as Native Americans
- Reading the Bible as Women(43)
Why this segregation when Ephesians teaches that the walls of division are broken down? Are we to believe that these differences are more important than our common faith in Christ? Are we to believe that five Christians from different backgrounds cannot read objective truth and agree on essential interpretations?
4. Progressive revelation
God began with a skeleton and continued to add more flesh. Here liberalism imports the theory of evolution. This is not what is meant by progressive. It means God started us in the first grade
teaching us the ABC's and then built upon that knowledge. Law is the starting point. It is the forgotten starting point in evangelism and in childhood development. [Terry, ch 33]
5. Priority of the original language (illustrated by the gossip
game)
6. One basic meaning; many applications I apply no Scripture phrase either to myself or any other
without carefully considering, both the original meaning and the secondary sense, wherein (allowing for different times and circumstances) it may be applied to ordinary Christians(44)
What a passage means is fixed by the author and not subject to change by readers. Meaning is determined by the author; it is discovered by the readers. Thomas Oden warned,
|
The text has rights over against its interpreters, some of whom stand poised to exploit, assault, and mug the text. When contemporary readers make themselves the absolute masters of the text, then the author has lost all rights of authorship. Authorial intent becomes subservient to contemporary ideological
interests.(45)
|
7. Context
A text out of context is a pretext! The Bible contains
quotations from men - Acts 17:28
from demons Mark 5:9
Satan Job 1:9
Job's misguided counselors - book of Job
This is an accurate record of what was said, yet not always true statements. Note that Proverbs 10-31 has no context from one verse to the next; the broader context is wisdom statements.
Two verses may be taken out of context to prove the Bible requires a belt and suspenders - Ecclesiastes 4:9-10. A verse in a church nursery - 1 Cor 15:51. Many scriptures are taken out of context with more serious consequences.
The Good Samaritan
As Told in the Book of Parables
|
Once upon a time a man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thorns and the thorns sprang up and choked him. The Bible says that just about that time a man called Jehu was coming across the field driving furiously with the Queen of Sheba in his chariot and when the Queen of Sheba saw that man, she gave him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold and ten changes of raiment, and took him up in the chariot and took him to an Inn. And it came to pass as they went on and were driving
through the woods the man's hair got caught on a limb of a tree and pulled him out of the rig and left him hanging there for forty days and forty nights and the ravens brought him food to eat and water to drink. Then the Bible says that one night while he was hanging there and had gone to sleep, that his wife Delilah came along and cut off his hair, and he fell on stony ground and great was the fall of him, and the dogs came and licked his sores. Then the Bible says, that the father saw him a longs ways off and invited him to supper, but he said, "I have married a wife and therefore I cannot come," so he was carried by the
angels into Abraham's Bosom.
Then the angel of the Lord brought the Good Samaritan to Jerusalem and when he goth there, he marvelled at their unbelief, for here he saw Queen Jezebel with a man looking over her shoulder, and he laughed because she had five husbands and the one looking over her shoulder was not her husband. And the angel
of the Lord took Jezebel and four hundred and fifty wicked prophets and slew the prophets with the edge of the sword; He then slew Jezebel and smote her seventy times seven, and they gathered up the fragments that remained and lo there were twelve baskets full and two small fishes. And verily I say unto you, the
great question is, "Whose wife will she be in the great resurrection morning?"
|
8. Cross reference
Use scripture to interpret scripture. Compare parallel passages. Use of the same word in other passages.
9. Historical and cultural background
Extrabiblical data does have value in clarifying what Scripture teaches and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations. However, extrabiblical views cannot be used to disprove Scripture or hold priority over it.
10. The centrality of Christ
Christ is concealed in the OT and revealed in the NT (based on the famous statement by Augustine).(46)
Luke 24:27, 44
John 5:39, 46
- 1. "The Testimony of the Scriptures to Christ" If he is God the Messiah He should know whether the Scriptures are trustworthy
- 2. "The Testimony of Christ to the Scriptures"
John 7:19; John 5:46-7; Mark 7:13; Matthew 8:4 - attributed the law to Moses; Christ refers to 20 OT characters; quotes from 19 OT books.(47)
VIII. Types of Biblical Literature
(Back to the main outline)
We cannot read a phone book as if it were a novel, a shopping list as if it were an advertisement, a poem as if it were a court brief. Note the types of literature in a newspaper: narrative,
opinion, advertizement, advice, entertainment, history, prophecy (weather). Is it prose or poetry, history or allegory, literal or symbolic?
|
If we try to use the rules for interpreting one genre to interpret a different type, we will almost surely misinterpret the passage that we are studying. We cannot, for example, read a psalm in the same way that we read a parable. This should not be
surprising. We know from our own culture that we cannot read a phone book as if it were a novel, a shopping list as if it were an advertisement, a poem as if it were a court brief.(48)
|
It is helpful to be aware of literature types, yet the Bible is one book and we should not build walls between sections of the Bible.
Types of literature or genre found in Scripture:
1. Law
|
a. Basic law - a declaration of principle
b. Case law - illustration of the basic law
c. NT Interpretation of the law
|
"You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15) is basic (a). "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain" (Deuteronomy 25:4) is case law (b). This principle is applied in 1 Corinthians 9:3-14 and 1 Timothy 5:17-18 to teach that a minister has a right to a salary.(49)
Basic law is a reflection of God's attributes and cannot be abolished. True Christians obey the commands of Christ (1 John 2:3-5; 5:2-3). Case law only reflects how "constitutional law" has been applied. Applications for Old Testament Israel are not
necessarily valid today. Ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding, yet the principles they taught are still valid.(50)
2. Old Testament narrative - prose
3. Psalms or poetry
Hebrew poetry did not rhyme, but had a parallelism
|
I hit him on the head,
I smote him on the pate,
Yea, upon his noggin I did konk him. |
4. Wisdom literature - aphorisms or pithy sayings. The sitz im leben is the teaching of a parent to child. A proverb is basically true; law is always true.
5. Gospel - are not biographies in the modern sense, but are written to a community of Christians to defend the faith and apply the faith using life and teachings of Jesus they are not unhistorical, but choose from the historical record events which make the point of their message - John 20:30-1 states he left things out, however, the material John did present was accurate and not fabricated
6. Parable - an extended metaphor or simile which compares a religious truth with a common experience or circumstance. "An earthly story with a heavenly meaning." It means to place two thing alongside each other for comparison. A parable exists to
establish one main point. "In preaching parables and similitudes, great care should be taken to discover their object and design, and those grand and leading circumstances by which the author illustrates his subjects."(51)
The parable of 10 virgins teach readiness:
- Arminians have used it to prove it was possible to fall from grace
- holiness advocates have used it to prove a second blessing
- Calvinists use it to prove there may be professions of faith which are not genuine
- dispensationalists use it to prove some detail of God's prophetic program - partial rapture?
- others attempt to derive some doctrine about the Holy Spirit
7. New Testament narrative - Acts
The genre of Acts - a continuation of Luke - yet Luke is not a biography but a gospel and Acts is not a theology. It is not wrong to get theology from Acts, but must let Acts set the agenda
- determine what question Luke was answering. "Our theology must be based on the didactic and not the narrative portions of Scripture. Even if all Scripture is profitable for doctrine we must not interpret narrative passages in a way which contradicts
the major doctrinal sections."(52) For example, we have the historical record that the apostolic
church sold all. Some movements have felt compelled to operate communally. I would argue that the early Church made a mistake and that Luke does not endorse the early communism, but merely reports it.
8. Epistle
9. Prophecy
John Darby advocated dispensationalism. The basis of this view was a strict literalism in the interpretation of the Bible, especially its prophetic parts.(53) Henry Morris claims his commentary on Revelation "could possibly be the most literal." Although he thinks "most of Revelation is to be taken literally,"(54) throughout the commentary he points out symbols which he thinks should not be taken literally. All literal interpreters are inconsistant.
Prophecy is not history in advance. While prophets did predict future events their writing was not in the form of historical writing. Instead they used symbols and figures which they borrowed from history, the culture, and creation. Dispensationalism literalizes prophecy and allegorizes history. A more helpful set of rules for interpretation of prophecy include:
|
1. Biblical symbolism and imagery is not a code
2. Biblical symbols do not exist in isolation
3. We must always have a clear-cut Biblical indication for any symbol or image we think we have found
4. The heritage of the church in systematic theology and in the history of exegesis is always a check on wild speculation
5. Biblical symbolism must be interpreted in terms of Biblical presuppositions and philosophy
6. The student of biblical imagery must be alert to the work of other scholars.(55)
|
Fulfilled prophecy is a key to the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. Because most prophecy was received by vision or dream, much of it is figurative or symbolic - poetic. Prophecy was not always fulfilled literally (see Elijah's return
in John the Baptist - Matthew 17:11-13). Understand promises made to Israel transferred to the Church.(56)
10. Apocalyptic - Daniel and Revelation are considered
apocalyptic and compare to other Jewish apocalyptic literature such as Enoch, The Testament of Moses, Apocalypse of Abraham Sibylline Oracles - although these books are not authoritative. In each case the subject matter is the suffering of the righteous
and the apparent delay of the kingdom of God. The message came as a vision from a heavenly perspective which was symbolic and the basis of the symbolism was the OT prophecies.
Others claim there is no such category as apocalyptic literature in the Bible because they define it to be a "sky is falling" end of the world emphasis on Armageddon which teaches we should retreat and wait for deliverance.
Apocalyptic literature has been defined as may or may not having an reference to end times - essentially it is about the revelation of divine mysteries through visions or some other form of immediate disclosure of heavenly truths - in Daniel, Revelation the writer is brought up to the heavenly level to see full scope of what is happening on earth. Apocalyptic literature
is not the same as prophetic literature. In prophetic literature Israel is rebuked for having gone astray and the prophet gives the message in the form of an analogy - the message is corrective most prophecy is poetic.
In apocalyptic literature the message is written as an
encouragement for the faithful. The book of Revelation must be interpreted from OT, not the newspaper.
IX. Steps in Interpretation
(Back to the main outline)
1. determine type of literature (genre)
2. word study:
|
1. etymologically |
The historical development of words in their meaning. Words have histories. 90% of all English words were borrowed from other languages. But words do not have meaning according to root, but usage - that is why a dictionary must be updated - "gay" has a different connotation today. The meaning comes from context, not
necessarily from the history of the word.
|
2. use in context |
Terry emphasizes usus loquendi - the meaning of the word in ordinary conversation. Today we would say "designation." Often when asked what a word means we are unsure, so we say, "Use it in a sentence."
|
3. comparatively-synonyms |
|
4. culturally - archeology |
- how is the word used in extra-biblical citations
|
5. cognate languages |
3. grammatical exegesis
Sentences involve grammar - syntax - the grammatical principles of the language in which the text was written must be understood. In English the meaning of a sentence is largely determined by word order. "The rate ate the cheese" and "the cheese ate the rat" contain the same words but convey different meanings. In Greek the meaning is not determined by word order, but on word endings. Nouns and adjectives are declined and verbs are conjugated. The syntax of the sentence, as well as the definition of the words, determine the meaning.
Verb -
person
number
voice
mood: indicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative
tense: present, imperfect, future, aorist, perfect, pluperfect
Nouns - eight cases: nominative, vocative, genitive, ablative, dative, locative, instrumental, accusative
X. Special Literary Forms:
(Back to the main outline)
1. Simile - "like" [Simile and metaphor, Terry, ch 11]
2. Metaphor - a device which speaks of one thing in terms which are appropriate to another - often the connection is made with "like" see Psalm 1:3
3. Allegory - Sinai and Christianity - 2 Corinthians 3
Hagar/Sarah Galatians 4:21-31 [Terry, ch 14]
4. Proverb- [Terry, ch 15] Sometimes proverbs have very little contextual relationship
5. Types - an illustration from an OT person, animal, object, event, or institution that existed historically, but pictured a future reality. For example - Adam/Christ Romans 5:12-17; 1
Corinthians 15:20-26 [Terry, ch 16].
6. euphemisms - falling asleep for died,
7. idioms - how would you translate, "I've got the blues"?
8. phenomenal language - the sun rises; not scientific language [Terry p. 538].
9. parallelism -
Synonymous parallelism in Jewish poetry is two lines which carry the same idea.
Synthetic parallelism is the connection of like ideas and words, but the second line adds to the first - Psalms 1:3
Antithetic parallelism - the connection of opposites; the second line contrasts with the first - Romans 6:23.
Some parallelisms are called chiasms. They have a repetition in reverse order "a, b, b, a" - see Philippians 3:3-10 for an example.
10. irony - a contrast of appearance and reality, a confident unawareness that the appearance is only an appearance, the comic effect of this unawareness of a contrasting appearance and reality - John 9:35; 11:45 [Terry, p. 253].
11. hyperbole - makes the point through exaggeration 1
Corinthians 14:18 [Terry, p. 253].
XI. Tools for Interpretation
(Back to the main outline)
1. Interlinear Old and New Testament
2. English translations
3. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
4. Lexicons
|
Hebrew: |
Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Laird, Archer, Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament, 2 vols.
|
Greek: |
Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. BDB and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament can be purchased keyed to Strong's. Vine's Expository Dictionary of
New Testament Words. Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 3 vols.
5. The Englishmen's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament. The Englishmen's Greek Concordance of the New Testament. These volumes are both available keyed to Strong's
6. Bible Dictionaries
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. J.D. Douglas, The New Bible Dictionary. Merrill Tenney, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the
Bible, 5 vols.
7. Works on Archaeology, Geography, History a Bible atlas books on manners and customs Alfred Edersheim, Josephus, Eusebius
8. Surveys and Introductions Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction
9. Theologies
10. Commentaries
XII. Twenty Ways the Cults Misread the Bible (Back to the main outline)
Beware of "proof-texting" or reading into the passage your own presuppositions (eisogesis). This is called scripture twisting.(57)
1. Inaccurate quotation of Scripture - the founder of
Transcendental Meditation quotes the words of Christ, "Be still and know that I am God" as an admonition for us all to recognize that we are God. Yet Christ did not say these words; they are found in Psalm 46:10.
2. Twisted translation - see the New World Translation of Colossians 1:15-17 which inserts the word "other" four times to change the meaning. There translation of John 1:1 reads, "the Word was a god."
3. The Biblical hook - cult propaganda is made to appear legitimate by a Scriptural quote which has no real connection to what the cult asserts.
4. Ignoring the Immediate Context
William J. Schnell, who was in the Jehovah's Witness
organization for thirty years, wrote that in order to make people think they were studying the Bible, studies were conducted. "The illusion created by looking up Scriptures here and there in the
book study successfully obscured the fact that only 6 1/2 percent of the Scriptures, and that in a disconnected way, were used in Watchtower books. Even this 6 1/2 percent was feigned and weighted down with 93 1/2 percent Watchtower verbiage."(58)
5. Collapsing Contexts - two or more unrelated texts are treated as if they belong together. Judas went out and hung himself. Go thou and do likewise. And what thou doest, do quickly!
6. Overspecification - speculation on what is not specified
7. Word play - Adam can be divided into two syllables a dam. Sin became a dam or separation between man and God - according to Mary Baker Eddy. But this meaning cannot be sustained from the Hebrew.
8. Figurative fallacy - mistaking literal language for figurative language or mistaking the figurative for the literal.
9. Speculative readings of predictive prophecy - Ezekiel 37:15-23 describes the coming together of two sticks. Mormonism teaches this is the joining together of the Bible and the book of Mormon.
10. Saying but Not Citing - Exotic writers sometimes claim the Bible teaches something, but do not give the reference. "God helps those who help themselves" is not in the Bible, but is often quoted.
11. Selective citing - citing only references which appear to support your position without looking at all relevant passages
12. Inadequate evidence - the citation of obscure references to support outlandish claims. A premature generalization is drawn from insufficient evidence.
13. Confused definition - ordinary biblical terms are given meanings foreign to their context. Supporters of reincarnation distort the biblical term "born again."
A Hardshell was preaching about the Philistines and told about "Sam Simpson what slewed five thousand Filipisters with a hog jowl. Filipisters is a little birds like Jaybirds. Sam Simpson planted his corn and the Philipisters cum and et it up. He watched em go to roost in a cave then he got a hog jowl what his
wife had cooked fer dinner with the turnip greens and he went in the cave and slewed five thousand uv the pesky Filipisters. If it wa'n't that Sam hit mout er been Sam Simon what et five thousand fish and two hundred pones of corn bread and the Lord had ter do
a miracle ter keep him from bustin.'"(59)
14. Ignoring alternative explanations - Jesus said, "I have other sheep" (John 10:16). "Obviously," they say, "this proves there is life on other planets."
15. The obvious fallacy - The unfamiliar are overwhelmed by the use of words like "obviously, undoubtedly, certainly, all scholars agree, etc." This is given in the place of logical reasons.
16. Virtue by association - A cult writer quotes a respected Christian authority. For example, Jesus is listed as one of the greatest gurus of all times. This is done to give credibility to all the other gurus listed. Sometimes cult writings adopt King James grammar in an attempt to sound biblical.
17. Esoteric interpretation - Claim privileged information that a biblical passage has a certain meaning. No explanation is given for the interpretation other than this knowledge was imparted to the interpreter through the Spirit or an angel or a vision. I was told once that Ezekiel 16:6 stops bleeding.
18. Supplementing biblical authority - new revelation either replaces or is added to Scripture, such as the Book of Mormon.
19. Rejecting biblical authority - Interpreters either reject the Bible as a whole or a particular passage is rejected because it does not fit the interpreter's teachings.
20. World-view confusion - Scriptural statements, stories, commands, or symbols are lifted out of their context and given another frame of reference. "All things are yours" (1 Corinthians 3:21) has been used as permission to steal! (Martin Wells Knapp,
Impressions, p. 21).
HERMENEUTICS IN EVERYDAY LIFE
The following material originated from Gary Holt and was posted on the e-mail Wesleyan Theologians
in Dialogue.
Suppose you're traveling to work and see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete the stop sign.
1. A post modern deconstructs the sign (knocks it over with his car), ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.
2. Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concluded that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.
3. A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take
it too seriously either.
4. An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist, or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn't bother to read the sign, but he'll stop if the car in front of him does.
5. A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.
6. A preacher might look up "STOP" in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean: 1) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; 2) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on
this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.
7. An orthodox Jew does one of two things: 1) Takes another route to work that doesn't have a stop sign so
that he doesn't run the risk of disobeying the Law. 2) Stop at the stop sign, say "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to stop," wait three seconds according to his watch and then proceed.
Incidently, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage: R[abbi] Mier says: He who does not stop shall not live long. R. Hillel says: Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding. R. Simon Ben Yudah says: Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and
the Writings. R. ben Isaac says, Because of the three patriarchs. R. Yehuda says, Why bless the Lord at a stop sign? Because it says, "Be still, and know that I am God." R. Hezekiel says: When Jephthah returned from defeating the Ammonites, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that a donkey would run out of the house and
overtake his daughter; but Jephthah did not stop at the stop sign, and the donkey did not have time to come out. For this reason he saw his daughter first and lost her. Thus he was judged for his transgression at the stop sign. R. Gamaliel says: R. Hillel, when he was a baby, never spoke a word, though his parents tried to teach his by speaking and showing him the words on a scroll. One day his father was driving through town and did not stop at the sign. Young Hillel called out: "Stop, father!" In this way, he began reading and speaking at the same time. Thus it
is written: "Out of the mouth of babes." R. ben Jacob says: Where did the stop sign come from? Out of the sky, for it is written: "Forever, O Lord, your word is fixed in the heavens." R. ben Nathan says: When were stop signs created? On the fourth day, for it is written: "Let them serve as signs." R. Yeshuah says:... [continues for three more pages]
8. A Pharisee does the same thing as an orthodox Jew, except that he waits ten seconds instead of three. He also replaces his brake lights with 1000 watt searchlights and connects his horn so that it is activated whenever he touches the brake pedal.
9. A scholar from the Jesus Seminar concludes that the passage "STOP" undoubtedly was never uttered by Jesus Himself, but belong entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.
10. A NT scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street, but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concluded that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a completely hypothetical street called "Q." There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar's commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunate omission in the commentary however; the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.
11. An OT scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage "STOP." For example, "ST" contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas "OP" contains two enclosed areas and one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is
different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundred of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the "O" and the "P."
12. Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there.
13. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar emends the text, changing the "T" to "H." "SHOP" is much easier to understand in context than "STOP" because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because "SHOP" is so similar to "STOP" on the sing several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.
NOTES
1. Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, D. J. Wiseman, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983), 16:154. back
2. Daryl McCarthy, "Inerrancy in American Wesleyanism, Inerrancy and the Church, John D. Hannah, ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 291 - see Terry's summary statement about the superiority of the Bible, p. 68. Apparently liberal theories caused Terry to change. back
3. John William Burgon, quoted by L. W. Munhall, The Highest Critics vs. the Higher Critics(Philadelphia: Munhall, 1896), 37-38.
back
4. H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1940), 1:183-4. back
5. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1987), 29.back
6. A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, "Inspiration." Presbyterian Review 2 (April 1881): 242.back
7. John R. Rice, Our God-Breathed Book - The Bible (Murfreesboro, TN: Sword of the Lord,
1969), 286. back
8. F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961), 131-136. back
9. Grace, Faith, and Holiness, p. 600. The quote cited from Farrar is from History of
Interpretation, p. 164. back
10. Frank Baker, "John Wesley's Churchmanship," London Quarterly and Holborn Review, October, 1960, p. 270. back
11. The Voice of the Nazarene, May/June, 1996, p. 22. see also Jeffrey D. Leonard, "The Beard
Controversy," p. 10. back
12. (18:1, Spring, 1983): 63-78.
back
13. The Burning Heart (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1967), 217-8. back
14. George Allen Turner, "John Wesley as an Interpreter of Scripture," Inspiration and Interpretation, ed. John Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 162.
back
15. Ira Brown, "Higher Criticism Comes to America," Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society 38 (December 1960): 205. See also L. W. Munhall, Breakers! Methodism Adrift (New York: Cook, 1913), 13, 72-83.
back
16. quoted by Munhall, Breakers, p. 64. back
17. Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967).
back
18. David L. Mueller, Karl Barth. Bob E. Patterson, ed., Makers of the Modern Theological Mind (Waco, TX: Word, 1972), 56. back
19. Wayne A. Robinson, Oral: The Warm, Intimate, Unauthorized Portrait of a Man of God (Los Angeles: Action House, 1976), pp. 94-5.
back
20. God, Revelation and Authority (Waco, TX: Word, 1979), 4:315.
back
21. see "Redaction Criticism: Is It Worth the Risk?" Christianity Today, 18 Oct. 1985, pp. 1-I to 12-I. back
22. Robert L. Thomas, "Evangelical Responses to the Jesus Seminar," The Master's Seminary Journal, VII, No. 1 (Spring, 1996): 75-105.back
23. David Bauer, The Structure of Matthew's Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988).
back
24. Requim (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 133-135. back
25. Christianity Today, 20 May, 1996, p. 34. back
26. "The Search for Perspective," Interpretation, 25 (January, 1971): 51-2.
back
27. Reading the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 184.
back
28. Leacock, quoted by Munhall, The Highest Critics vs. the Higher Critics (Philadelphia: Munhall, 1896), 102-3. back
29. "The Fundamentalist Leavening of the Holiness Movement: 1914-1940," Wesleyan Theological Journal, 13:1 (Spring, 1978): 85. back
30. The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 110.
back
31. George Eldon Ladd, New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 37. back
32. Mark A. Noll, Between Faith and Criticism (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 23. back
33. Ralph Earle, Word Meanings in the New Testament, 4:223.back
34. see Ron Hershberger, "The Authoritative Word," The Church Herald and Holiness Banner, 6 March and 20 March, 1992. W. Gary Crampton, "The Original Manuscripts, Translations, and the Majority Text, Chalcedon Report, December, 1994, pp. 23-26 - advocates include Zane Hodges, David Otis Fuller, Peter Ruckman, and Edward F. Hills. back
35. see Ralph Earle, "The Rationale For an Eclectic New Testament Text," The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1986), 53-57.back
36. Stewart Custer, The Truth about the King James Version Controversy (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones, 1981), 10. back
37. see Gary R. Hudson, "Ruckman's Unscriptural Claims for the K. J. V." The Sword of the Lord, 17 March 1989. Thurman Wisdom, "Textus Receptus: Is it Fundamental to Our Faith?" Faith for the Family, October 1979. Charles R. Wood, "The Question of Preservation." Faith for the Family, November 1981. Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman, Facts on the Textus
Receptus and the King James Version (Hatfield, PA: Biblical School of Theology, 1975). Edward
M. Panosian, What is the "Inspired" Word of God? (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University,
1979). back
38. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 19.
back
39. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. 1881, 2:2. back
40. Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 474. back
41. Robert L. Thomas, Introduction to Exegesis, 1981, pp. 15-16.
back
42. H. Ray Dunning, Grace, Faith, and Holiness (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1988), 112. back
43. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 1:154-187. back
44. Wesley, Letters, 2:206.
back
45. Requiem: A Lament in Three Movements (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 73-4.back
46. Expositions on the Book of Psalms, Ps 106:31. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 8.
back
47. see Christ in All the Scriptures, A. M. Hodgkin, 1907, 249 pages. This book has been often reprinted. back
48. Douglas Stuart, "Interpret = Understand + Explain, Decision, April, 1995, p. 12. back
49. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 11-12.
back
50. Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985), 135-138. back
51. Adam Clarke, Christian Theology, p. 322. back
52. The Hole in the Holiness Movement, pp 51-2. back
53. Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), 21-24. back
54. Henry M. Morris, The Revelation Record (Wheaton, IL: 1983).
back
55. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 15-17.
back
56. Charles D. Provan, The Church is Israel Now (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 1987). back
57. this final section gleaned primarily from James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980).
back
58. Thirty Years A Watchtower Slave (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), 124.
back
59. J. M. Rowland, Blue Ridge Breezes (Nashville: M. E. Church, South, 1927), 244-5.back
IMARC wants to thank Dr. Vic Reasoner for allowing us to publish this lecture. Dr. Reasoner's tapes may be ordered from the Fundamental Wesleyan Society at P O Box 3432, Beckly, WV. 25801-1932. Or if your would like to order them via e-mail contact Dr. Reasoner. Also ask about the other titles that are available via the Fundamental Wesleyan Society.
