Archive for July 24, 2007

SEMINAR DISCUSSION 11#3


WHICH DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION? WHY?

Hermeneutics is defined as the science and art of biblical interpretation. There have been huge tomes written on hermeneutics, but I want to boil it down to the essence of the most significant principle of interpreting the Bible.

I consider the Principle of Intended Meaning or the Face Value Principle to be the most important courtesy of the following reasons:

This is a system or method of interpreting a text that interprets terms in their normal, routine and customary designation. Each word is given the basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking. Author’s of the bible doesn’t have it in mind that a variety of meanings should be drawn from their utterances and the correspondences. Assigning echelons of meanings to a statement is very erroneous.

This method is also referred to as the historical-grammatical method of interpretation by many scholars. In this method, the principal goal is to be identified with the original intent of the author when he wrote. The underlying assumption of the face value method is that God intended to communicate His word to man so that we could understand it. God did not try and hide truths in the Scriptures; His intent is not to make it as difficult as possible to understand. Rather, He wants us to read and understand His word. The apostle Paul says the same thing to the Corinthians when he writes: “For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end.” (2 Cor. 1:13).

The overriding principle of our Bible study must be to understand what the human author (and divine Author) intended to communicate. The only way to accurately do this is to take words in their normal meaning. As the adage goes, “if the plain sense makes sense you have the right sense.” All Scripture must be taken in its proper context. This means that the interpretation of Scripture should be looked at in the light of the verses and book in which the passage is found. The argument of the author must be taken into account. The historical and cultural context should be remembered as well. This is possibly the most desecrated of all the principles and is, in my opinion, the number one violation of biblical interpretation which plagues the church today. A text without context is a pretext! No interpreter can cleave unto a literal interpretation of every word in the bible.

The primary meaning of a text is its original intent by the original writer to the original audience. The Implied Meaning is the full original intent by the original author.
The Extended Meaning is based upon this Primary Meaning and reaches to the reader with application to his/her life.
I want to clarify this point by offering an example from the bible:

“Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5:18)

The Primary Meaning is the command that the Ephesians [and others the letter circulated to] are not to be drunk with wine, but to be filled with the Spirit. The Implied Meaning is that the Ephesians are not to be drunk on ANY alcoholic beverage or other mind-altering drug, but to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The Extended Meaning is that Christians are not to let a medication, drug, or alcohol influence our mind so that we cannot be led by the indwelling Holy Spirit. God may even use this verse to rebuke a single reader living 2,000 years later by speaking directly to his heart through the text of Scripture. “For the word of God is living and active; sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” [Hebrews 4:12]

Leave a comment »

Journal Article #1

 

 

TITLE OF THE ARTICLE: WHAT IS ‘GENERATIVE POETICS’? THESE AND REFLECTIONS CONCERNING A NEW EXEGETICAL METHOD

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: ERHARDT GUTTGEMANNS-(NOT AVAILABLE)

Erhardt is a German Professor who had greatly affected biblical study in the past years. His knowledge was very profound in matters of criticisms and apologetics.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA: BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, VOLUME XIV, NO. 3, 2006

 

URL: www.brill.nl

 

OUTLINE OF THE ARTICLE:

  1. WHAT GENERATIVE POETICS IS ALL ABOUT
  2. AXIOMS OF THE METHOD FOR STUDYING BIBLICAL TEXTS
  3. FUNDAMENTAL REMARKS AND CONCLUSION

 

 

WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ALL ABOUT:

 

  1. Generative Poetics is a new method of linguistic textual analysis that is applicable to all human texts. It is the first method of dealing with texts to feature a controllable connection between biblical texts, which are the object of the analytical grammar, and contemporary speaking in the church which is the object of the synthetic grammar. As a grammar, Generative Poetics not only ties theology to grammar (as in scholastic theology), but it also explicates theology as grammar: Theology thereby becomes the science of the operations and transformations between texts “given” to us in the tradition and texts to be “produced” today; its scientific character is tied to the linguistic reflection that constitutes the metalinguistic status of theology.
  2. Generative Poetics has as its epistemological basis specific axioms derived from “common sense” in linguistics and literary criticism.

The first axiom is the option for the fundamental thesis of Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of modern structural linguistics. This modern formation is a paraphrase of Saussure’s thesis that language must first be regarded synchronically and only afterwards diachronically (which is a sequence of diachronic texts in a language, so that the language is a synchronic system in the diachronic text.

The second axiom emphasizes on the distinction between the actuality of a “given” text and the already mentioned grammatical forces. The actuality of a text is the direct object of linguistic analysis, which must consequently be a text linguistic.

The third axiom is the recognition that between the surface of a text and its linguistic basis there is a hierarchical relationship, not a linear relationship of projection or representation.

The forth axiom is also the form-critical thesis that texts can be differentiated by “genres” or “forms”.

The fifth axiom is the functional character of a text or sign. We can refer here to the speech function model of Karl Buhler, Frederich Kainz, and Roman Jakobson, which exhibits the functional and organic character of a sign and of sentences.

The sixth axiom is the thesis that generative and transformational grammar is a kind of game theory. According to this theory, a concrete text is a performative “match” in which both speaker (author) and hearer (reader) employ a “strategy” of “alternatives.”

The seventh axiom is the option for the lexeme that expresses an action, i.e., the option for Lucien Testniere’s structural syntax, according to which the verbal node expresses a small drama that is expanded into the text by introducing actants and circumstants. This position implies, naturally, modern form of actantial theory as well as agreement with Charles J. Fillmore’s theory of deep case (Fillmore).

The eighth axiom is the distinction between several kinds of transformations. These are not only syntactic transformations (for example the change from active to passive, vice versa), but also semantic and pragmatic transformations.

 

3.Here, Erhard tries to explicate clearly the aforementioned axioms in order to even to clear the understanding of the unprepared reader who will face difficulties in reading this article. The reader who is accustomed only to traditional theology has difficulties in understanding and this caused by our exegetical tradition. Generative Poetics claim to be a methodologically and scientifically reflective textual theory that can stand up to contemporary standards of scientific theorizing, succeeding “existential interpretation” which is the only earlier text theory that has been consistently thought through.

 

Traditional exegesis involves an alienation and surprising behavior which is related to a constriction of the sociology of knowledge, according to which only that can be taught and passed along in theology which has already been considered the legitimate content of theology.

Again, another cause of the estrangement now being experienced is that traditional exegesis has shut itself off not only from practical theology, but also from the daily affairs of the schools and from the education of Philologians of religion.

 

 

Leave a comment »