Hermeneutical Model: What's yours?

[Sola1517]

Because of the book Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology in the Counterpoints Bible and Theology series I've recently discovered Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics and I dig it. What I want to know from anyone that wants to interact is what model do you like and what are the pros and cons of it. Discuss.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I have no idea what you are saying, please define each of them.

 

[Ken Behrens]

There are four levels of spiritual growth for adults: law, negotiation, miracles, and immanence (this is a result of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology too involved to discuss details here).

Every verse of Scripture applies to all four 1. Historical (really happened) 2. Practical implication for daily life 3. The structure of the physical or spiritual world 4. Information about the workings of the heart of God. (compare the two primary traditional related systems: https://biblicalculture.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/the-four-levels-of-interpretation/ and http://newvineyard.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-four-levels-of-biblical.html

My method is to use all available evidence of archeology, history, plilology, etc., and prayer to find the four apply each possible interpretation to the needs of the listeners, depending on their level of understanding.

 

[Sola1517]

I've opened a can of worms. It doesn't matter.

 

[Biblicist]

I've opened a can of worms. It doesn't matter.

Take heart, if you were to ask the who knows how many hundreds of forum members if they have been taught at local church level how to effectively study, and where they have been shown how to use the various technical aids such as lexicons and commentaries, let alone with the hermeneutical principles, I would like to know who the person is who says that they have.

 

[Apex]

Each individual text was written at some time in history in a specific culture by a person with a personal framework of presuppositions. The author or editor intended to communicate a message to a specific audience to accomplish some purpose. Our goal should be to discover that meaning of the text in those terms.

As such, I employ the usual exegetical procedures of lexical semantics, grammar, genre criticism, and all appropriate tactics of historical and literary criticism. I strive for the interpretation that is most plausible historically, given all the available data.

My ultimate goal is to hear the message of the Bible as the original audiences would have heard it or as the first readers would have understood it. I feel it is important to avoid the tendency to regard our own experience as the standard for interpreting what we see and read.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Historical/cultural hermeneutics

 

[raschau]

For anyone lacking context, look up "Biblical hermeneutics" on Wikipedia.

My own method is variously historical-grammatical (what meaning did the authors intend?), covenantal, Christo-centric (what does this passage say about Christ and in Christ?), allegorical or symbolic (what is the spiritual meaning of this passage?), ethical (what is this passage saying about ethics and morality?), and existential or subjective (what is this passage saying to me personally?).

 

[prophetjul]

Using an Hebraic understanding of the texts, passages, context as much as possible.
Especially the words and teachings of Jesus.

 

[Peter J Barban]

There are a lot of good methods mentioned here. Just remember that these methods are mere tools used to understand and apply the truth. We should be careful not to be overly dogmatic when applying a human-devised framework on the scriptures.

I often try to understand the scriptures as the original hearers would have but this usually does not do justice to prophetic passages.

 

[dysert]

Because of the book Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology in the Counterpoints Bible and Theology series I've recently discovered Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics and I dig it. What I want to know from anyone that wants to interact is what model do you like and what are the pros and cons of it. Discuss.

I believe I started a similar thread a while back, but it got no traction. The way I apply hermeneutics, in a nutshell, is:

1. The Literal Principle: You interpret the Scripture according to normal language, real people, real history, normal language.

2. The Historical Principle: The historical context is everything…culture, geography, politics, religion, the thinking of the people, the perspectives, the world view, what’s going on at the time, how the people think…all of that is informing you on the historical context.

3. The Grammatical Principle: This is to take a look at the language and the syntax and lexicography of a passage…the words, the way they’re arranged, the prepositions, the pronouns, the antecedents.

4. The Synthesis Principle: Scripture interprets Scripture.

5. The Practical Principle: The final thing you want to ask is what are the implications of this?

Of course, each of these principles can be unpacked to yield a lot of discussion, which I'm willing to do, but that's it in a nutshell.

 

[Sola1517]

I came up with a quick way to do exegesis. We all know observe, interpret, and apply right? Well, it's basically that.
1. Observe (What does it say?)
2. Interpret (What does it describe theologically?)
3. Apply (What do I do now?)

I'm trying to figure out if I'm a Dispensationalist or Covenant theologian.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I came up with a quick way to do exegesis. We all know observe, interpret, and apply right? Well, it's basically that.
1. Observe (What does it say?)
2. Interpret (What does it describe theologically?)
3. Apply (What do I do now?)

That sounds good.

 

[Ron Gurley]

What is biblical hermeneutics?

Hermeneutics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

1. Who (is the author) (quis/persona)?
2. What (is the subject matter of the text) (quid/materia)?
3. Why (was the text written) (cur/causa)?
4. How (was the text composed) (quomodo/modus)?
5. When (was the text written or published) (quando/tempus)?
6. Where (was the text written or published) (ubi/loco)?
7. By which means (was the text written or published) (quibus faculatibus/facultas)?

 

[def]

Because of the book Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology in the Counterpoints Bible and Theology series I've recently discovered Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics and I dig it. What I want to know from anyone that wants to interact is what model do you like and what are the pros and cons of it. Discuss.

I use complexity theory because understanding the Bible is a complex problem and complexity theory provides an approach to study complex systems and problems.

 

[icxn]

I use complexity theory because understanding the Bible is a complex problem and complexity theory provides an approach to study complex systems and problems.

Can you give an example?

 

[hedrick]

I worry about any model that starts with a predefined concept. I'm concerned that the method suggested in the OP does this. The biggest danger in exegesis is preventing our own preconceptions from being read into the text. For that reason I wouldn't go beyond the obvious: using what we know about the history and religion of the time, and grammar and language usage of the community, what would the author have intended?

That's not the end of the process. We draw theological and pastoral conclusions based on this, but this is a separate process. It's separate because (1) the original context isn't the same as ours; in many cases we don't see direct answers to our questions, but rather to related questions that can give us a basis for making decisions; (2) different Biblical authors have different perspectives; we have to look at what is said throughout Scripture in order to synthesize it. Failure to keep these two levels separate inevitably leads to reading our own desires into the text.

In fact in academia there are several levels. The ones I can think of at the moment are Biblical studies, exegesis, Biblical theology, and theology per se.

 

[def]

Can you give an example?

Can you give an example?

An example without proper explanation doesn't do the theory justice. I have put my ideas into a book, and have published it as an ebook under the title 'Complexity Theory Connecting the Gospel'. The ebook can be dowloaded for free at Smashwords.

There are two case studies. The first study resolves the apparent contradiction between Paul's justification by faith vs James' justification by works.