Two Approaches to the Study of the Bible
There are many approaches that people find helpful in studying the Bible. But nearly all of them are concerned with one of two questions: (1) What does it mean? And (2) What did it mean?
The first of the two basic questions, “What does it mean?” is what the philosophers probably would call an “existential” question. If a person is a believer, a participant, in one of the Biblical religions, then for that person the Biblical texts and ideas are not merely historical phenomena. They are also an active and living reality in the present time, and therefore they cannot be ignored. The question is also a very personal one: “What does it mean for me (or us)?”
Now if a person is seeking to answer this existential question, that person will find it necessary to examine the Biblical text somewhat subjectively, through “eyes of faith,” in a “devotional” manner. That person will probably spend some time in meditation and/or prayer about his or her personal life-situation, as well as in meditation on the text itself. The goal of such an approach is to find out how the Biblical text applies to the person’s present-day living-out of his or her faith. The person will ask: “What must I (or we) understand or believe, and, in light of those understandings, what must I (or we) do, and how then must I (or we) live and act?”
Because this approach is primarily a subjective one, different persons who approach the text in this way will often come to differing conclusions, and sometimes even to the exact opposite conclusions, concerning the very same text. And yet, despite those differences, each person’s understanding may be the correct one for his or her own specific situation.
It should also be clear that in a “devotional” study, what we already believe or understand influences what we get from the study. Our families, our friends, our teachers, our churches and church leaders, our personal experiences, and our cultural environment all have contributed to our current beliefs. These prior understandings, true as they may be, will naturally influence what we expect to find in a Biblical text. And we may end up finding just what we expected to find, and no more. There is nothing especially wrong with this, just so long as we remain aware that this is the case.
The Historical Question: What did it mean?
The second of our two basic questions is an “historical” one that could apply to any written text. A few years ago I came across in an old family Bible a letter written in 1854 by relatives in another state to one of my wife’s ancestors. In that letter, as in most letters, there were people, and places, and events, and matters of personal concern mentioned. But a letter is just one side of a dialogue. Indeed, this letter included answers to questions that my wife’s ancestor had earlier sent to the sender.
The person to whom the letter was written probably understood everything that was written. But since I did not know any of those people, had never been to any of those places, and had not experienced any of those events, the letter had no immediate “existential” relevance for me. The only way it might have some relevance for me might be if I could identify those people, places, events, and concerns, and if I could make connections between those people and the family into which I had married. I wish there were time to tell you the fascinating information that I eventually learned after researching that letter. I soon got hooked on genealogy, and came to a new appreciation of both my wife’s family and my own, as I came to understand how our families before us had lived, and how their lives and activities had influenced our situations even today.
The study of almost any text in the Bible will provide a similar experience. Of course, many Biblical texts seem to have a “universal” significance. Few of us have any trouble finding relevance to our own lives in a text like Psalm 23, or First Corinthians 13. But a text like Psalm 137 will make most of us a little uncomfortable. And a text like 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 (especially in the King James Version) can be totally mystifying unless we can find out what kind of situation was being addressed. Indeed, the great majority of texts in the Bible will provide little or no help to us in living out our faith daily unless we ask some historical questions before we do our devotional work.
During my seminary years a funny story circulated on campus. It probably never happened, but it makes a good point. It seems a seminary faculty member drove out into the country and stopped at a gas station. The attendant—we really had them in those days—filled up the tank and happened to notice the parking sticker in the car window. He said, “I see you work at the seminary. What kind of work do you do there?” The professor said he taught Biblical interpretation. To this the attendant replied, “Well, I don’t see any need to teach anybody how to interpret the Bible. All a person needs to do is just read it and then do what it says.”
The professor responded, “Well, you may be right for a lot of Biblical passages. But let me give you three texts, and see where you arrive if you just read them and do what they say, without any interpretation.” He then quoted these three passages:
“Judas went and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5);
“Go and do thou likewise” (Luke 10:37); and
“What thou doest, go and do quickly” (John 13:27).
The professor then reminded the man that you can get into a whole lot of trouble by just doing what those texts say without asking the right questions: “Who said it? To whom? To address what situation?”
If I examine any text I may ask questions like these: (1) what is being said or described in the text? (2) who wrote it, or who said it? (3) to whom was it written or said or addressed? (4) when, and where, was it written or said? (5) what circumstances caused it to be written? (6) for what purpose was it written or said? and, in light of those things, (7) what did the original writer or speaker desire to communicate to his or her first readers or hearers?
Asking such questions can enhance the study of any text. But especially this is true for controversial texts, and for problematic texts like those in the book of the Revelation to John, where the most important question of all is, “Just who is the author addressing—twentieth century Americans, or first-century Christians in the Roman provinces of Asia Minor (what is now the nation of Turkey)? All of these questions focus on the primary question: what did the text mean for the original writer and for the original recipients? If our interpretation would not have made sense to them, then it is probably not the right interpretation for us, either!
There is also a second historical question: how has the text been interpreted in the intervening centuries, and what has been the significance or the influence of this text in the intervening time since it was written? That is, what has it come to mean in and for later generations of the Church in light of the experiences of later Christians? Today’s interpretation will also be affected by what has gone before.
Now if a person seeks to answer these historical questions, that person will need to utilize certain historical and critical methods, most of which are included under the general headings of “historical criticism” or “literary criticism.” But the word “criticism” needs to be clarified. As the word has been used in Biblical interpretation it has never meant a specifically negative judgment. Rather, it is used in its most original meaning, from the Greek word kritikos, and means simply, “to make a judgment,” whether positive or negative or neutral, based on all available evidence. It means to trace out and pass judgment based on all the facts of a situation, to ascertain all the circumstances that in any way affect the meaning of a unit of Scripture.
The historical-critical approach is generally a more objective approach to Bible study than the devotional/existential approach. But this does not mean that subjectivity is non-existent even in this approach. For even skilled researchers can be blinded by their own presuppositions. Thus, there is no guarantee that every interpreter armed with the same methodology and with the same facts, and having the same degree of devotion and open-mindedness will come to the same conclusions. There will always be the subjective element to be considered. Indeed, it must be present, or the study may become dry and irrelevant to human needs. But the person using this approach, like the person using the devotional approach, must always be on guard against being led astray by his or her own presuppositions and even preferences.
Students of the Bible often assume that the great merit of a devotional or existential approach is that it simply takes the words of a text “literally,” i.e., at their face value, without “reading into” the text things that it does not say. And generally, even in the historical or critical approach, taking the text at face value is a good thing. But language often plays tricks on a reader. For example, a man may say of his beloved, “her face makes time stand still.” But literally, that is not what the statement means. We end up “reading into” those words the idea that the woman is lovely. Or suppose the man had said instead, “she has a face that would stop a clock!” The literal meaning of those words is not pertinent. The idea we “read into” those words is something negative. We cannot always take words and phrases at their face value without asking the who, what, when, where, and why of using such language.
One scholar has made the sad comment that
“ . . . the central tragedy of the history of Biblical study over the past two centuries is that the objective, distancing, critical approach to Scripture and the obedient, trusting, experiential approach have proceeded in substantial independence of each other.” (John Goldingay, Models For Interpretation of Scripture; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 264).
I agree. It is also my own contention that both approaches are necessary and appropriate for the student of the Bible.
But I do feel that the historical-critical approach generally should be taken first. I am convinced that the first step in interpretation is to examine those historical and literary contexts out of which the Biblical texts arose—the authorship, intended audience, date and historical/sociological/political/ cultural situations of the author(s)/compiler(s) and their addressees. Only after all of that—when we have a good idea of the original meaning for the original writer and readers—is a person then most fully prepared to ask the practical and existential question for a believer:
“What must the truth be for me/us, if it appeared like this to people who lived and thought and acted like that?”
No comments:
Post a Comment