the art and science of interpretation, esp. of the Bible. Commonly distinguished from exegesis, which interprets the text by applying those principles.
the skill of all but totally ignoring the Bible while appearing to accept it.
The playful definition comes from Moisés Silva, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Text Form and Authority,” in Scripture and Truth (ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 156:
During the past decade or two, biblical scholarship has shown a growing obsession with the issue of hermeneutics, a harmless enough word, but one occasionally used as a euphemism for “the skill of all but totally ignoring the Bible while appearing to accept it.” Although one may be excused for feeling irritated at the way the word is thrown about as the ultimate panacea, it would be a grave mistake to dismiss the issue altogether. It is so easy for us to read the evening paper and understand it—that is, interpret it accurately—that we tend to think of interpretation as an eminently simple process. In reality, we depend on a massive framework of assumptions slowly formed by innumerable experiences. As a result, those aspects of interpretation that appear to us to be the most obvious are often the ones that cause us the greatest difficulty. In particular, when we confront a text written by someone whose “framework of assumptions” differs significantly from ours, how can we possibly bridge the two? The attempt to answer that question is what hermeneutics is all about.
Christians disagree—sometimes sharply—on how themes unfold in the OT and NT. Here are a few examples:
the old covenant and new covenant
law and grace
Israel and the church
promise and fulfillment
type and antitype
the Sabbath and Lord’s day
circumcision and baptism
People cannot study such issues in an isolated way without raising larger biblical and theological structural issues. The hermeneutical spiral is complicated, and the way people approach such issues reveals how they put the Bible together. That’s why, upon the recent recommendations of some friends, I spent several hours this afternoon carefully reading the following 66-page essay:
(Note that Wellum’s long essay is hyperlinked above to a free PDF.)
This essay by Wellum, who is “neither Dispensational nor Covenantal (in the paedobaptist sense of the term)” (p. 123n44), is a fine example of what it looks like to approach an issue like baptism responsibly in light of Bible’s storyline.
What follows is an outline of Wellum’s essay with quotations from the introduction and conclusion. (I’ve added the numbering.) Continue Reading »
I just came across an intriguing entry in Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen’s Handbook of Biblical Criticism(3d ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), p. 53:
Electronic Hermeneutics refers to an emerging discussion concerning the rise of the digital age and its impact on religious communities and on the nature, place, and meaning of sacred texts such as the Bible within these communities and within the culture at large. Cognizant of how epochal shifts in the technology of communication have transformed human culture (as exemplified by the successive inventions of writing, printing, and the predigital electronic media), scholars are now investigating how the transition from printed text to the digital, mutlisensate worlds of hypertexts, hypermedia, interactivity, and “virtual reality” will shape human experience and communication. Biblical scholars have been among the first to make use of computer technology and to reflect on how changes in communication technology affect beliefs and practices. See W. J. Ong, Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977); R. Hodgson and P. A. Soukup, eds., From One Medium to Another: Basic Issues for Communicating the Bible in New Media (Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed & Ward, 1997).
Gerald Bray summarizes John Calvin’s hermeneutic with six statements, concluding with this one (Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present [Downers Grove: IVP, 1996], 203-4, emphasis in original):
6. Biblical interpretation passes through three distinct but related phases. If any one of these phases is omitted, the text will not be interpreted properly. The three phases are exegesis (represented by his commentaries); dogmatics (represented by his Institutes); and preaching (represented by his sermons). . . .
Perhaps the best way to appreciate the necessity of holding these three things together in harmony is by looking at what happens if one of them is left out. [1] Exegesis and dogmatics without preaching are dry and academic; there is no application. [2] Exegesis and preaching with no dogmatics are subjective and contentless; a passage of Scripture will be interpreted without regard for its proper context in the Word of God as a whole. [3] Finally, dogmatics and preaching without exegesis are mere propaganda; they are not based on a proper assimilation of the facts. Only as all three are held together in proper balance can the message of Scripture be properly applied to the life of the church, and God’s people be edified as they are meant to be.
My good friend Phil Gons was sitting just a couple rows directly behind home plate in Seattle on May 8 for the Mariners-Rangers game when 6′ 8” Richie Sexson charged the mound and the benches cleared. If all you saw was a replay of the pitch prior to his charging the mound, you might wonder why he did that; the fastball was right down the middle (although eye level). This video at MLB.com serves as a good lesson in biblical hermeneutics: context, context, context!
Last year I spent two or three hundred hours proofing it, so I am fairly familiar with it. It is not always scintillating reading, but it is a thoughtful, first-class reference that I will continue to consult often (especially since I am planning to write my dissertation on the use of the OT in a NT passage). I anticipate that many theological journals will publish reviews of this book that will unanimously praise it as uniquely useful. Many reviews may point out minor areas of disagreement, but this is inevitable given the eclectic theological perspectives of the contributors. (E.g., I. Howard Marshall’s Arminian perspective comes through more than once in his comments on Acts.) Continue Reading »
