Hellacious Hermeneutics ... or "Why're we so serious about the Bible"?

[2PhiloVoid]

Exactly, which is why I don't completely throw out the idea of Hermeneutics. Just like with many things that Christians love to debate, there is a healthy balance. God gave us knowledge about history, language, intent and things like that for a purpose. God also gives us the Holy Spirit as a guide as well for a purpose. Some want to rely only on our own knowledge but not on the knowledge that comes from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

That's a good point for us to keep in mind, JM, but I'd say that the rabbit hole goes even deeper than all of 'dat ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The entire book of Hebrews is a "hermenuetic " and " exegesis" of all the OT types and shadows of Christ in the OT.

The same with the book of Romans regarding sin, righteousness, justification etc....

Both of those books systematically take us through the OT laws, principles, types, shadows and gives us a NT application through Christ. The OT pointed us towards Him and His future coming and the NT looks back on those fulfillments in the OT.

So the NT is an exegesis/hermeneutic of the OT.

hope this helps !!!

To some extent, I agree with you, but only if we're talking mere biblical exegesis. The fuller existential situation is that even our individual acts of reading and applying exegesis to the bible sits within an even larger reality that often needs additional realizations to contend with ...

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

To some extent, I agree with you, but only if we're talking mere biblical exegesis. The fuller reality is that even our individual acts of reading and applying exegesis to the bible sits within an even larger reality that often needs additional realizations to contend with ...

Could you give an example of the above with a passage ? Thanks !

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could you give an example of the above with a passage ? Thanks !

How about I apply this to the entire bible: our entire personal enterprise in dealing with all of the historical and textual environs involving the bible will depend on whether we 'choose' to handle it all and read it all with either a Diachronic approach, or Synchronic one, or even an Existential one ...

... all of this also comes in tandem with the ideas and preconceived interpretations that our own denominations (we each like to call 'home') will try to impart to us.

Of course, the kicker is that each denomination of the Chrsitian faith claims the spiritual high ground with understanding and applying the Bible.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

How about I apply this to the entire bible: our entire personal enterprise in dealing with all of the historical and textual environs involving the bible will depend on whether we 'choose' to handle it all and read it all with either a Diachronic approach, or Synchronic one, or even an Existential one ...

... all of this also comes in tandem with the ideas and preconceived interpretations that our own denominations (we each like to call 'home') will try to impart to us.

Of course, the kicker is that each denomination of the Chrsitian faith claims the spiritual high ground with understanding and applying the Bible.

Do you believe there are absolute truths that are in both testaments ?

And if so can that be used as a foundation on which to build ones hermeneutic upon ?

In other words if ones hermeneutic is in opposition to a foundational principle then one must examine his interpretation.

Would you agree ?

 

[spiritfilledjm]

That's a good point for us to keep in mind, JM, but I'd say that the rabbit hole goes even deeper than all of 'dat ...

Of course, and likewise, some people want to rely only on the Holy Spirit, or what they believe to be the Holy Spirit, leaving no room for cultural and linguistic context or anything, which can be just as big of an issue.

 

[Clare73]

Could be applied. It's just a teaching tool. Like a Rosary.

A rosary is not a teachig tool, it's a prayer tool.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you believe there are absolute truths that are in both testaments ?

And if so can that be used as a foundation on which to build ones hermeneutic upon ?

In other words if ones hermeneutic is in opposition to a foundational principle then one must examine his interpretation.

Would you agree ?

No, I don't really see a whole lot in the way of any 'absolute method' that is provided to us in the biblical literature. There are hints about it here or there, but nothing provided in a comprehensive, lock-step description. And some of the referents are either existentially cloudy OR are epistemically referring to some ideas that obviously influenced the writers thoughts but aren't specifically identified.

Otherwise, if it were, there'd be no debate about what the implications are with taking a random book from the Bible---let's just say, Hebrews, for example---and decidedly and absolutely come down on certain interpretations that lend themselves to support of some Either/OR issue (like OSAS or not-OSAS, as an example).

So, Hermeneutics are hellacious for all of us, but we can't just rely on the Holy Spirit in direct fashion either (whatever that is supposed to 'mean,' and I think we can see that those verses that pertain to the Holy Spirit's leading....they're not always clear).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course, and likewise, some people want to rely only on the Holy Spirit, or what they believe to be the Holy Spirit, leaving no room for cultural and linguistic context or anything, which can be just as big of an issue.

Yeah, I can agree with that. But I'd also bring in the further problem of the fact that today, we only know to even bring up the idea that we can be led by the Holy Spirit in understanding the Bible because .... well....the Bible tells us so.

In other words, the claim to the Holy Spirit's guidance is kind of circular in its structure: we have to correctly interpret those verses (like those in the Gospel of John, for instance) before we know we have this resource and can attempt to apply it. But, somehow, so many Christians who claim to draw illumination (and sometimes "authority" for their teachings).........claim they're being led by the Holy Spirit yet disagree with ever other Christian Tom, Rick and Sally.

But rather than say or imply that the bible is useless in pointing us to some apparent Ethereal Guidance from the Lord through His Spirit, I'd instead suggest we just all handle those texts more circumspectly and without overdoing our own (sometimes made-up) assertions about what it all means and how it all applies.

Of course, I might be biased; or maybe I've just heard too may Faith Movement preachers (and Baptist preachers, for that matter) to think I'm wrong ...

 

[Norbert L]

I leave this thread as a space for all other Christians to tell me why I don't need Hermeneutics (or lessons in Exegesis)

A tool is only as good as the craftsman using it. I would say you don't necessarily need Hermeneutics to come to the truth. Nor can it always be correct.

I'm not convinced that that the use of Hermeneutics will always reach the same conclusion on every topic, given those trained in it within the scholastic/academic arena of discussion don't always agree with each other too.

It suffers from the same inadequacies that other advanced disciplines of knowledge also have in understanding everything there is to know about creation. Knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough of the subject to know you're wrong. Which is a limitation of our flesh and blood. 1 Corinthians 13:12

Can it be a tool that will sometimes fail? I would say yes. However that doesn't mean never use it either, it's just not totally reliable on every occasion.

 

[covid-19v1]

Many scholars quickly jump to eisegesis without going through exegesis first. They seem to forget the rest of us rely on their deeper study of the Scriptures.

Now, majority of the Christians believe these:

* The "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2-4 are people from the line of Seth.

* Satan took a third of the angels with him before Adam was created

* The serpent in the garden of Eden was Satan himself

 

[Clare73]

To some extent, I agree with you, but only if we're talking mere biblical exegesis. The fuller existential situation is that even our individual acts of reading and applying exegesis to

the bible sits within an even larger reality that often needs additional realizations to contend with ...

And the same can be said of hermeneutics itself. It does not sit outside its own suppositions. Therefore, making it governor of the meaning of the word of God does not go down well with those "renewed minds which have overthrown reasonings and every high thing rising up against the knowledge of God, to take captive every thought to obey Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5).

In addition, the suppostions of modern hermeneutics about an "even larger reality" do not take into account the Bible's own explanation of itself, its own reality and reference points, etc., of which the Holy Spirit gives insight and understanding as one grows in the renewed mind. The "reality" of hermeneutics does not govern the reality of Scipture.

Modern hermeneutics was developed for human literature and, in my view, is applicable only to a limited extent to divine "literature." There's more to divine "literature" than there is to human literature, the divine "literature" being apprehended differently--affecting its meaning, and which hermeneutics is not qualified to treat. I do not see hermeneutics as being qualified, as it propounds, to give the true meaning of divine "literature," but only as a limited aid thereto.

Nor did modern hermeneutics and its philosophy exist when the old divines exegeted the Scriptures with such insight and power. That's because the key to understanding Scripture is about the eyes of the heart being enlightened (Ephesians 1:8), not about hermeneutics.

The suppositions of modern hermeneutics are too worldly minded to govern understanding of divine "litertature." Its use is only as a limited aid, at best.

 

[Der Alte]

Thanks for the points of direction, Der Alte. Fortunately, I'm a bit further along in all of this than just at the beginning.
As for basic resources I used my late mother's NKJV and the Hebrew-Greek Key Study NASB that my wife bought me back in the 1990s. I also have the NIV Thompsen Chain Ref. which my parents bought me back when I graduated from high school. As for a concordance, I use biblegateway.com, but I also have a large, thick NIV conc. in print that comes in handy sometimes as well. And I have a Vine's, of course--a very basic staple to use, and a Greek N.T. Vocabulary, but no big lexicon as yet. Right now, I use biblehub.com for some that.
What I really need to do is buckle down and work through the N.T. Greek language book I have. I keep getting tripped up with doing so.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have one more resource you might find useful.
This the 1957 BGAD Greek lexicon online. It can be read but not D/L at this link. The Greek does not appear correctly.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Gingrich & Danker

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have one more resource you might find useful.
This the 1957 BGAD Greek lexicon online. It can be read but not D/L at this link. The Greek does not appear correctly.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Gingrich & Danker

Oh, ok. Awesome! Thanks for the lead on that resource, Der Alte! I'll take a look at it.

 

[Der Alte]

And the same can be said of hermeneutics itself. It does not sit outside its own suppositions. Therefore, making it governor of the meaning of the word of God does not go down well with those "renewed minds which have overthrown reasonings and every high thing rising up against the knowledge of God, to take captive every thought to obey Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5).
In addition, the suppostions of modern hermeneutics about an "even larger reality" do not take into account the Bible's own explanation of itself, its own reality and reference points, etc., of which the Holy Spirit gives insight and understanding as one grows in the renewed mind. The "reality" of hermeneutics does not govern the reality of Scipture.
Modern hermeneutics was developed for human literature and, in my view, is applicable only to a limited extent to divine "literature." There's more to divine "literature" than there is to human literature, the divine "literature" being apprehended differently--affecting its meaning, and which hermeneutics is not qualified to treat. I do not see hermeneutics as being qualified, as it propounds, to give the true meaning of divine "literature," but only as a limited aid thereto.
Nor did modern hermeneutics and its philosophy exist when the old divines exegeted the Scriptures with such insight and power. That's because the key to understanding Scripture is about the eyes of the heart being enlightened (Ephesians 1:8), not about hermeneutics.
The suppositions of modern hermeneutics are too worldly minded to govern understanding of divine "litertature." Its use is only as a limited aid, at best.

All of this seems a lot like the KJVO argument to me. Basically old is good, new is bad.
The KJV was what I heard in Sunday school in the early 40s until the early 80s when I attended grad school and studied Greek under Dr. Roger Omanson, now deceased, who was on the original NIV translation committee.
Hermeneutics is not some evil method imposed on the Bible by evil people.

The difference between exegesis and hermeneutics
Exegesis is an exposition or explanation of a text, especially a religious one while hermeneutics is the study or theory of the methodical interpretation of text, especially holy texts.​

Of course Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul etc. didn't have hermeneutics because they didn't need "hermeneutics" they were writing their native language in their native culture.
Anybody here fluent in 1st century Koine Greek and/or fully knowledgeable in 1st century Israel/Mediterranean culture?
Perhaps you whip out your Strong's and consider yourself an expert in Greek and Hebrew.
What advances have been made in knowledge of koine Greek and Jewish culture since king Jimmy?
Has anybody here bad mouthing hermeneutics ever heard of TLG?

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae® (TLG®) is a research program at the University of California, Irvine. Founded in 1972 the TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek from Homer to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. Its goal is to create a comprehensive digital library of Greek literature from antiquity to the present era.
TLG - Home​

With this database scholars can research any/every known Greek word how it was used throughout history which prior to 1972 was impossible.
Now tell me how is this evil or of the devil etc.

 

[Clare73]

All of this seems a lot like the KJVO argument to me. Basically old is good, new is bad.
The KJV was what I heard in Sunday school in the early 40s until the early 80s when I attended grad school and studied Greek under Dr. Roger Omanson, now deceased, who was on the original NIV translation committee.
Hermeneutics is not some evil method imposed on the Bible by evil people.

The difference between exegesis and hermeneutics
Exegesis is an exposition or explanation of a text, especially a religious one while hermeneutics is the study or theory of the methodical interpretation of text, especially holy texts.​

Of course Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul etc. didn't have hermeneutics because they didn't need "hermeneutics" they were writing their native language in their native culture.
Anybody here fluent in 1st century Koine Greek and/or fully knowledgeable in 1st century Israel/Mediterranean culture?
Perhaps you whip out your Strong's and consider yourself an expert in Greek and Hebrew.
What advances have been made in knowledge of koine Greek and Jewish culture since king Jimmy?
Has anybody here bad mouthing hermeneutics ever heard of TLG?

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae® (TLG®) is a research program at the University of California, Irvine. Founded in 1972 the TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek from Homer to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. Its goal is to create a comprehensive digital library of Greek literature from antiquity to the present era.
TLG - Home​

With this database scholars can research any/every known Greek word how it was used throughout history which prior to 1972 was impossible.
Now tell me is this of the devil etc.

Ya' lost me. . .

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And the same can be said of hermeneutics itself. It does not sit outside its own suppositions. Therefore, making it governor of the meaning of the word of God does not go down well with those "renewed minds which have overthrown reasonings and every high thing rising up against the knowledge of God, to take captive every thought to obey Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Right. Which is why I'm an Existentialist; which is of a whole other nature than Hermeneutics as a field. In other words, just as Pascal and Kierkegaard would say, we existentially stand and live before the Lord, AND thereby, MY first AXIOM is that no one human being among us, including me and including you, knows everything or has everything about the Lord and His Word "figured out." So, this should temper our enthusiasm to beat down other Christians who simply disagree with us on some aspects of the bible that NO ONE knows an answer to and won't.

In addition, the suppostions of modern hermeneutics about an "even larger reality" do not take into account the Bible's own explanation of itself, its own reality and reference points, etc., of which the Holy Spirit gives insight and understanding as one grows in the renewed mind. The "reality" of hermeneutics does not govern the reality of Scipture.

Yeah, that's just it, Clare. The Bible DOESN'T provide us with a systematic, comprehensive understanding of everything we have to deal with in the world, especially not in a supremely specific case-by-base measure. It's just not in there. What the Bible does do is give us indications about who our Lord and Savior is, what He's done for us and how we need to respond to Him. It doesn't tell us all of the 'whys' and 'wherefores' about how and what God has decided to do in the World.

So, yeah, you, me, the biblical writers--we all sit together in this larger ethereal arena that is beyond or scope to measure accurately. Doesn't mean we can't try, but it does mean we should be modest about our expectations and as to just 'how well' we think we're understanding what is expressed in the Bible.

Modern hermeneutics was developed for human literature and, in my view, is applicable only to a limited extent to divine "literature." There's more to divine "literature" than there is to human literature, the divine "literature" being apprehended differently--affecting its meaning, and which hermeneutics is not qualified to treat. I do not see hermeneutics as being qualified, as it propounds, to give the true meaning of divine "literature," but only as a limited aid thereto.

Actually, modern hermeneutics emergres from the conglomeration of present insight that we all now have in the world. And if you listend to Zimmerman--which I kind of require in order for folks to really post here in this thread--which is 'why' I posted the thread---hermeneutics doesn't attempt to "give the true meaning of divine literature." Rather, it's about being accountable and mindful for how it is that we each individually handle, read and apply our understanding to texts of any kind, and in case of the Bible, then Biblical Hermeneutics helps us identify which approach among many that we have to admit that we're employing.

Nor did modern hermeneutics and its philosophy exist when the old divines exegeted the Scriptures with such insight and power. That's because the key to understanding Scripture is about the eyes of the heart being enlightened (Ephesians 1:8), not about hermeneutics.

Actually, it did. Time to learn something new, Clare.

The suppositions of modern hermeneutics are too worldly minded to govern understanding of divine "litertature." Its use is only as a limited aid, at best.

You've misunderstood, and probably because you're not actually engaging what is being said. You'r guessing and then throwing "guess mud" at the issue.

I know you're a bright lady--you can do better!

 

[Der Alte]

Oh, ok. Awesome! Thanks for the lead on that resource, Der Alte! I'll take a look at it.

Give me a break I'm an octogenarian but I just remembered another one. The 1930 edition of the Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew lexicon can be D/L at this link.
A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testament : with an appendix containing the biblical Aramaic : Brown, Francis, 1849-1916 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Clare73]

Right. Which is why I'm an Existentialist; which is of a whole other nature than Hermeneutics as a field. In other words, just as Pascal and Kierkegaard would say, we existentially stand and live before the Lord, AND thereby, MY first AXIOM is that

no one human being among us, including me and including you, knows everything or has everything about the Lord and His Word "figured out." So, this should temper our enthusiasm to beat down other Christians who simply disagree with us on

some aspects of the bible that NO ONE knows an answer to and won't. (BSD)

Keeping in mind that doesn't mean no things are "figured out."

Edit to add: It's not so much about "figuring it out" as it is about knowing the mind of the writer from all his Bilbical writings. If you know his mind, you know what he means in what he says, wherever he says it.
Hermeneutics uses the wrong measure--external circumstances rather than the knowledge of the writer's mind which he is applying to those circumstances.

Yeah, that's just it, Clare. The Bible DOESN'T provide us with a systematic, comprehensive understanding of everything we have to deal with in the world, especially not in a supremely specific case-by-base measure. It's just not in there.

What the Bible does do is give us indications about who our Lord and Savior is, what He's done for us and how we need to respond to Him. It doesn't tell us all of the 'whys' and 'wherefores' about how and what God has decided to do in the World.

It does about some, in fact about many, "whys and wherefores."

So, yeah, you, me, the biblical writers--we all sit together in this larger ethereal arena that is beyond or scope to measure accurately. Doesn't mean we can't try, but it does mean

we should be modest about our expectations and as to just 'how well' we think we're understanding what is expressed in the Bible. (BSD)

Can we not understand it to the degree that it is presented, which is often more than adequate?

Actually, modern hermeneutics emergres from the conglomeration of present insight that we all now have in the world. And if you listend to Zimmerman--which I kind of require in order for folks to really post here in this thread--which is 'why' I posted the thread---hermeneutics doesn't attempt to "give the true meaning of divine literature." Rather, it's about being accountable and mindful for how it is that we each individually handle, read and apply our understanding to texts of any kind, and in case of the Bible, then Biblical Hermeneutics helps us identify which approach among many that we have to admit that we're employing.

Actually, it did.

If modern hermeneutics existed in the 16th century, can it be "modern?"

Time to learn something new, Clare.
You've misunderstood, and probably because you're not actually engaging what is being said.

Probably. . .

You'r guessing and then throwing "guess mud" at the issue.

Guessing gives me too much credit. . .when non-scientific human understanding presents an umbrella explanation that invalidates authority outside itself, setting itself up as the real authority, my B.S. detector goes off (see above (BSD). . .and then that explanatin already has two strikes against it.

I know you're a bright lady--you can do better!

Well, I know that I am out of my league when it comes to philosopy, that I do not value human philosophy as philosphers do, that I'm content with the Bible's answers to my questions, that all the questions I have are answered there, and that I'm glad I have the limited mind that is able to be content therewith.
It wasn't always that way.

And explanations about why believers really can't understand their Bibles, as though God's word is unknowable, sets off my BSD.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Keeping in mind that doesn't mean no things are "figured out."

Right. I agree. And no Christian Hermeneuticist that I've learned from would say that "nothing" is figured out. ... Lol! Clare, don't confuse Christian Hermeneuticts with Secular Nihilists and other Skeptics.

It does about some, in fact many, "whys and wherefores."

Again, I agree with you. That's a good comment to make and it compliments (or balances out) my previous comment on this.

Can we not understand it to the degree that it is presented, which is often more than adequate?

Not always: in many cases, yes, which is why on a number of important biblical matters, you and I will agree or at least have some compatible overlap in how we read the Bible. But in other instances, this won't be the case (hence, this is one reason we find so many denominations today, even among us Trinitarian Christians ... )

If modern hermeneutics existed in the 16th century, can it be "modern?"

Good point! And this here is a perfect example of the importance of reading closely and carefully what is being said and intended to be pointed to by the author-----which I failed to do in this singular instance when I read your statement. My apologies!

But yeah. "Modern" Hermeneutics didn't exist 100s or 1000s of years ago. However, Hermeneutics of some sort has been floating around on some formal level, even since the time of Moses (and then later to Plato, in different forms of course, with different methods). And as I pointed out to one other poster above, a basic example of Hermeneutics at work in the Bible can be seen in how Paul addressed the Athenians when he was preaching on top of Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34, one of my favorite passages in the Bible).

As we all know, Paul had studied well. He had studied a lot of stuff, and we can't just say that everything Paul said to the Athenians was merely content that the Lord just deposited in Paul's mind. Some of the content "might" have been deposited, but I think we can also safely say that the Lord used what was already in Paul's mind which had been accumulated from his studies and by way of his own intercultural experiences.

But in the case of the Bible, part of the 'value' of Biblical Hermeneutics for us today, and then with the actual act of applying substantive exegesis to our reading of the Bible, is so that we don't end up waffling around in Absolute Relativism [Yuck!!!] and "doing just whatever is right in our own eyes" with our Bible reading. That's one of the goals of Hermeneutics---to firm up our understanding, and it can play a part in 'faith seeking understanding.'

Anyway. "Modern" Hermeneutics is different than ancient Hebrew or Greek in some sense, but it also is a part of that ancient lineage of science (a "soft science") and an art.

Probably. . .

Guessing gives me too much credit. . .when non-scientific human understanding presents an umbrella explanation that invalidates authority outside itself, setting itself up as the real authority, my B.S. detector goes off (see above (BSD). . .and then that explanatin already has two strikes against it.

Actually, both Hermeneutics and Exegesis are considered as forms of science and art. So, Hermeneutics is a kind of science, which is why it's useful. Of course, on a really practical level, the science of Exegesis is where the prime value is at as it relates to our better understanding of what the Biblical writers wanted us to know and/or realize about our faith in Jesus Christ.

Well, I know that I am out of my league when it comes to philosopy, that I do not value human philosophy as philosphers do, that I'm content with the Bible's answers to my questions, that all the questions I have are answered there, and that I'm glad I have the limited mind that is able to be content therewith.
It wasn't always that way.

That's fine. But we all have things to learn, me included.

And explanations about why believers really can't understand their Bibles sets off my BSD.

Well, the truth is, some of them don't. On my part, I'd just rather say that if anything, Hermeneutics makes me leary of certain preachers who claim to be personally visited by 'Jesus Himself' and who then turn around and go do and say the weirdest things ... like "Send me your money so I can buy a jet to spread the Gospel ... "

Anyway, thanks for the comments, Clare, and thanks for "clare-ifying" a few things in our brief discussion.