The Bible and the location of meaning (2)

Considering the location of meaning from an exegetical point of view, scholars divide the study of biblical texts along the same lines as the diagram in our previous discussion. Biblical interpretation is thus generally divided into three major fields of study; Historical Criticism (what the author intended), Literary Criticism (what the text itself says), and Ideological Criticism (the text’s effect on society) (Walsh, 2009, p. 5).

One of the major obstacles for many Christians is the use of the term “criticism” for the respective fields of study. This is due to two reasons. Firstly, in English this term have a very negative connotation – especially when applied to the Bible. Secondly, for many Christians the idea of studying the Bible ‘critically’ is not only strange but also ludicrous. How can we study God’s Word critically?

In terms of the first issue, it is important to ask for the meaning of a term within the context it is used. In theological and biblical studies it refers to the “Analysis and evaluation (of something)” (Deist, 1984, p. 61). Historical Criticism, for example, refers to the “analytical inquiry into the history of biblical literature with a view to reconstructing the growth of each book prior to its canonization” (Deist, 1984, p. 115). Thus, within the context we use the term, ‘criticism’, we refer to the scientific research of the biblical text.

That brings us to the other issue, “Should we study the Bible in this way?” Who are we to analyse and evaluate God’s Word critically? We do not have much of a choice. We need to use the best tools to our avail to understand the text, exactly because we want to understand God and his Word better (see The Bible, stories and method). Furthermore, we are dealing with a complicated communication process with a multitude of distortion between the original author and us. The reality is that we are not only dealing with the text in our analysis but we are also busy with critical self-analyses. Interpreting the Bible involves both the text and the interpreter (VanGemeren, 1997, p. 7). Because the danger always exist that we read into the text what the text do not communicate but what we want to hear (or brought up to hear), means that we need to ask critical questions to the text (Human, 2003, p. 270). The purpose of a critical analysis of the text is thus more to critically question and evaluate what I ‘belief’ or ‘think’ the Bible says, than ‘criticising’ the text itself. It is only when we critically engage with Scripture that we can put our own presuppositions under the spotlight. That provides the opportunity, in the light of God’s Word, to make ‘corrections’ to what we belief the Bible is communication.

This process sometimes unleash a deep conflict within ourselves as we weigh up what we always thought the Bible communicates and what our interpretation of the text brings to light. This conflict takes us out of our comfort zone into one of uncertainty. It certainly makes us humble before God and his Word. This struggle need not be a negative experience because in this process, we come to know God and ourselves better. It is when we pose these critical questions about God and the Bible that spiritual growth takes place (Human, 2011, p. 57).

Do we value all three approaches we started of with equally? Probably not. As I already indicated, my preference lies with the text itself. That does not mean, however, that I could not and should not consider the results of the other disciplines. To the contrary, without Text Criticism I would not have a proper text to work with. Without Feminist Criticism, that I do not agree with, I would probably not have re-considered what (I thought) the Bible says about the place and role of women in the church. Thus, although my personal emphasis lies with the study of the text itself, I need to consider and use the results of the other disciplines in order to understand God’s Word better.

 Taken and adapted from Walsh (2009)

Deist, F. E. (1984). A Concise Dictionary of Theological and Related Terms. J L van Schaik Uitgewers / Publishers.

Human, D. J. (2003). Teologie Kroniek: Skrifverstaan En Die Nuwe Hervorming. Verbum et Ecclesia, 24(1), 260–275.

Human, D. J. (2011). Die Uitdagings Van Bybellees, in: Vos, C. and Human, D. J. (Eds.), Vaste rots op wie ek bou, (pp. 53–78). Kaapstad: Lux Verbi.BM.

VanGemeren, W. (Ed.). (1997). New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0633/96015006-d.html

Walsh, J. T. (2009). Old Testament Narrative: a Guide to Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press.

The Bible and the location of meaning (1)

When we look at narrative texts, the communication structure is similar to the Basic Communication Model. The sender (author) wants to communicate a message (story) to someone else (reader/audience). He does that by telling or writing down his message.

The question now is, “Where will we find the meaning of the message?” Does the meaning of the story lie with the author (what he/she intended), in the text itself or with the reader? (See diagram below) My vote is with the author; he is after all the one who have the message and knows what he wants to communicate. Furthermore, in terms of the Bible, he is the ‘inspired’ author of God’s message. If I want to study God as a character in a story, my purpose would be to come to an understanding of how the author intended the reader to understand who God is and what he is like. Unfortunately, we do not have the author with us to verify whether we understand what he meant when he wrote his story neither do we have a commentary (written by the author) to explain exactly what he meant.

Another way to go is to ask, “What did the original readers of the text understood the message to be?” After all, besides the author, they would have understood the story best as the message was intended for them. They best understood the code the author used to communicate his message with and shared a common frame of reference (context) with the author. Unfortunately, once again, we do not have the readers of the text with us to explain what they would have understood the message to be. Furthermore, we do not have any guarantee that they understood perfectly what the author intended.

Although we do want to understand what the author intended with his writing and it would be great to understand what the original receivers understood the message to be, the only ‘thing’ we have is the text. The problem with the text is that, because we are so distanced from its origins (few can read it in its original language and most have nothing more than a vague, if any, understanding of the ancient world), we can easily misunderstand the message and the author’s intention. In addition, it is too easy for us to hear from the text the message that we would like to hear. As Long (1999, p. 88) observes, “In this day and age, it would be the height of hermeneutical naïveté to deny or ignore the fact that one’s background beliefs have a significant impact on how one processes and assesses data.”

Still, that is what we are left with, the text – God’s Word – and, should we want to understand its (his) message to us, we need to go about it in a responsible manner. “What we must do is identify elements in the text that plausibly ground our interpretations” (Walsh, 2009, p. 5) [author’s emphasis]. Thus, we need to make every effort to understand the text for what it is and what it wants to communicate. 

Long, V. P. (1999). Old Testament History: A Hermeneutical Perspective, in: VanGemeren, W. A. (Ed.), A guide to Old Testament theology and exegesis: an introductory articles from the New International dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, (pp. 83–99). Grand Rapids  Mich.: Zondervan.

Walsh, J. T. (2009). Old Testament Narrative: a Guide to Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press.

The Bible, stories and method

If stories invite and engage us, sometimes even unconsciously, do we really need to go through a whole process of interpreting the text? Can’t one just read the story and get to the message? Do we really need a method to understand biblical stories?

Maybe I should start by saying that there is no one method to interpret stories but multiple methods. For the beginner it might be best to come to grips with a (good) method to interpret a text. Once one is familiar with that method one can take on others and start to integrate different methods. We should also keep in mind that method is not the purpose but a means to a purpose – a tool to be used in order to understand a text.

Good methodology helps us to consider different aspects of a text and help us look at the text from different angles. Good methodology, well applied and used, safeguard the text and the reader from the honest reader’s presuppositions. By an honest reader, I mean a reader who knows and acknowledges his/her presuppositions and are willing to submit it to the text. An honest reader will allow the biblical text to change his/her presuppositions in the light of the text and not the other way round. An honest reader fine-tunes his ears to the message of the text. He/she will consider as many aspects of a text as necessary in order to let the text speak, putting aside, as far as possible, his/her own ideas of or about the text.

This becomes part of a process more than a method. Waltke (2001, p. 33) puts it well:

The task of the Bible student is to discern the rules employed in a biblical text as evidenced by that text. This task necessarily involves a heuristic spiral. One approaches the text with ideas about its techniques and principals, which the text then proves or disproves. Thus begins the dialogue with the text that leads the careful listener to learn how the text communicates.

Methods are the systemised way of understanding how things work and/or can be done. Literary methods, develop by scholars who studies literature in order to understand how it works, helps the reader to understand the rules by which different texts functions – how they work. Understanding how stories work and systematically working through different aspects of a story, enables the reader to come to a better understanding of the story at hand. By working through a story methodologically, we consider different aspects of what the story is about and how the author wanted to communicate his message.

As Walkte shows, it is not about methodologism but about a dialogue with a particular text. Different text functions differently. The student needs to establish which of the verity of tools in his toolbox would work best to understand a text. By carefully applying first this than that tool, knowing how to use each, he/she learn how to let the text speak and what the text wants to say – coming to know God’s voice and heart behind that of the author.

Waltke, B. K. (2001). Genesis: a Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.

The Bible, stories and inspiration

Another issue that came up in class (see my previous blog) is that of inspiration. How can we refer to stories in the Bible and use methods from secular sciences and at the same time hold to the Bible as the inspired Word of God? Or, are we not devaluating the Bible as Word of God by simply referring to large chunks of it as stories? What are the implication of the above for or view of the Bible as ‘inspired’?

We do not have the time and space to discuss inspiration theology here. What we should say is that the Bible did not fall out of heaven ready to go to print. It developed over thousands of years and many authors have been involved in its writing. In faith, we believe it to be the inspired word of God.

The interesting fact is, agreeing that the Bible is inspired by God, that God did not choose to communicate to us by means of a ‘flat’ abstract historical thesis. When one reads the Bible, it soon becomes obvious that the text, that we believe to be the inspired Word of God, is a multidimensional document. It uses narrative, poetry, parables and a range of other literary types (genres) to communicate to us.

We all know that one cannot read fiction, poetry, history or the newspaper in the same way. We need to understand the type of literature we are dealing with and interpret it according to that literature type’s rules. Not doing so, we might end up with a total wrong idea of what the text wants to communicate.

If God then, communicate to us by means of different genres, shouldn’t we take the trouble to understand his communication accordingly? If the inspired authors of the Bible used narratives to communicate God’s message, then we should take that serious and interpret it as such. Otherwise, we might end up with a totally wrong understanding of what God wants to communicate to us.

As Ryken (1990:9) correctly observes: “To view the Bible as literature does not require one to regard it as fictional or to compromise one’s view of its special religious authority.”

If God inspired the authors of the Bible to write huge parts of Scripture in story form, who are we to think that it is not fitting to read and interpret it as such?

The Bible, stories and fiction

For many people ‘story’ equals fiction. During a recent lecture on the interpretation of Genesis, I experience a lot of resistance to the approach I was putting forward. It was only towards the end of the class that I realised that students thought of stories as fiction. Thus, my references to the ‘stories’ in Genesis resulted in all sorts of questions. Is the lecturer implying that the Bible is fictious? Does he then believe the Bible not to be true but made up stories? What does he believe in regards with the inspiration of the Bible? Etc.

The first question we need to ask is whether ‘story’ necessarily equals fiction. Can stories also be true? Tate (2008:102) agrees that the idea the parts of the Bible may be read as literature seems to be foreign to many readers. Taking it a step further and study God as a character among other characters would be, for many Christians, inconceivable. To view and study God as “a character in a novel” (Clines 1995:190) stops short of profanity.

According to Ryken (1990a:7):

Fictionality, though common in literature, is not an essential ingredient of literature. The properties that make a text literary are unaffected by the historicity or fictionality of the material. A literary approach depends on a writer’s selectivity and molding of the material, regardless of whether the details actually happened or are made up.

It seems important that we distinguish between fiction and non-fiction when we talk about stories. Although a biography for example, is written in the form of a story, it is still a true representation of what happened in a person's life. The author may use of all the literary devices available to him to give 'colour' to the story and make it more interesting, it does not, however, take away anything of the fact that what is portrayed really happened.

Modern history on the other hand, endeavours to be “scientifically objective as possible” – “writing history for histories sake” and will not utilise formal narrative strategies as you would find in narratives (Tate 2008:104).

The Bible is, according to Tate (2008:105), “storicized history”. In other words, history written in the form of a story – history writing that makes use of all the literary devices available. Being “storicized history”, the Bible is also more than just history. “Storicized history” is more than just a representation of history. It reaches beyond the cold hard facts of history to “guide the reader into the discovery of some universal truth” (Tate 2008:105). The biblical narratives is about more than the stories itself. It wants to show us a God who really cares for his creation and a reality beyond the one we live in.

Thus, although the same principals are used to interpret fictious and non-fictious narrative, story (narrative) does not necessarily equals fiction. Even though we might refer to a passage in Scripture as a story, it does not necessarily imply fictionality. It is thus, not only, possible, but also vital, to read the biblical “stories according to their own rules and conventions”, without giving up on the high regard we hold towards Scripture.

God - as the author intended

If we want to understand a biblical story, we must first take seriously the effort to learn how stories are told, specifically how biblical stories are told (Berlin 2005:21).

Maybe we should start by asking, “What is a story?” Brink (1987) defines a story as, something that happened to someone, somewhere, sometime. From this definition, we may conclude that a story consists of a plot or intrigue (something happened), character(s) (someone), space or setting (somewhere) and time (sometime). We may add to this definition, “as told by someone (author) to someone else (audience)”. These are the basic elements to be considered in order to interpret a story. All these elements play an integral and integrated part to make a good story.

Should we want to come to a better understanding of whom and how God is, we will do a character study of the character, God. Because the author uses all the different elements of the story to shape his characters (and the characters, to shape the story), we will need to follow a holistic approach, considering the role of each element in shaping a character.

What is important is to establish how the author wanted his audience to perceive the character we want to study. For example, how did the author of Genesis sketch God to his audience so that they understood God in the way he wanted them to? It is of no use if we understand the story or the purpose of the story different from what the author intended. Neither will it serve any purpose to come to view God differently than the picture the author drew. As Bright (1991, pp.42&43) puts it:

We have… the task of exegesis – of reading from the text the meaning the author intended to convey. We are not permitted the luxury of eisegesis – of reading our own ideas into the text or finding there meanings which its author did not have in mind”.

Thus, we analyse and interpret stories with the purpose to understand what the original author intended his audience to understand. By applying this to the character, God, we might come to a better and deeper understanding of who and what kind of God he is. And, we agree with Gunn and Fewell (1993:89) that it is one of the Bibles great challenges to come to some understanding of the character of God.

Understanding stories - understanding God

We all (well I guess, most of us) like a good story. Even better, a good story told by a good storyteller. A good storyteller will use different strategies to draw you into the story’s world. They will endeavour to communicate the story in such a way that you would somehow see it play of in your mind's eye and sometimes even feel part of it - inviting you into the world of the story. Good stories well told also involve the listeners emotion. Thus, a joke told well will make you cry with laughter. A good love story will produce all sorts of emotions - empathy, sadness, happiness, excitement etc. Storytellers and writers employ different strategies to achieve this goal in order to communicate their message more effectively.

This is no different for the stories we find in Scripture. The original storytellers of the biblical stories were masters of their trade. They also wished to involve their audiences in their stories on different levels. They also used different literary strategies to communicate the all important message of God’s journey with his people. Bible stories are not cold hard facts told in a dull fashion. They were told around the family fire in such a way that the stories would not only be remember but also in a fashion that would make the children sit up and listen, knowing that these are stories about their ancestor’s journey with God – knowing that the stories will continue in and through them.

Now, these stories became part of our canon – God’s Word to us.

If God wished to communicate his message to us by means of different genres, shouldn’t we take the way narratives function serious as well – not only as stories that played of long long ago, but to understand them for how they are told and what they want to achieve? In other words, for us to understand God’s message better, we should take the means by which this message is communicated serious. By not doing it, we might only get half the message or even the wrong message.

I think that Long (1994:43) was right when he said that

an increased appreciation of the literary mechanisms of a text—how a story is told—often becomes the avenue of greater insight into the theological, religious and even historical significance of the text—what the story means.

Knowing how stories work, what they wish to achieve and how they wish to achieve it, might bring us to a better understanding of who and how God is.