Importance of historical/critical methods

Historical/Critical methods of interpreting the text are important. In “Historical-critical approaches” in the book The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, John Barton says, “the underlying motivation of ‘historical’ criticism is to free the text to speak” (pg. 17). By discovering the history behind the text and within the text, the reader can better understand the original intent of the passage. I think Barton describes an important aspect of historical criticism when he says, “where we do not know who wrote the text or what he or she meant by it, we may still be able to say that the text ‘could mean A’ or ‘could not mean B’ on the basis of our knowledge of the language in which the text was written” (pg. 17). By being able to eliminate certain interpretations, we can get closer to a good interpretation. I also think this is important because then people cannot abuse the text, and make it fit whatever they want it to say. If a person gives a certain text authority in their lives, then the text should speak to the person, and not necessarily the other way around.

William Swartley, in his article “Essays on Biblical Interpretation: Anabaptist-Mennonite Perspectives”, describes four reasons why historical criticism is essential. I will summarize his ideas. His first point is that the Bible stories happened in history, which can help us see the causes and effects of situations. For example, a reader could then notice themes of promise and fulfillment if they follow the historical context. His second point is that scripture is very diverse. We can become involved with the scriptures. To notice the main points, there may be some ideas that run counter to them, but these are all important. For example, Jesus took some Old Testament scripture and highlighted it for the people, while other passages he turned around. He applied what was necessary for his day. Swartley’s third point is a moral method that involves Jesus-based discernment. Jesus is the Way, and so we must check our interpretations with Jesus’ model for our lives and God’s will in our lives. Swartley’s final point is that we can bring our own thoughts to the reading for a fresh encounter with the text. This is like the two horizons. If we allow it, the text can change us.

Historical criticism can be very helpful when trying to interpret a text, as long as we allow the text to speak for itself. We can bring our own thoughts and experiences with us, and see how they interact together to form truths about God’s world.

Distantiation

J. Severino Croatto uses the term distantiation in his book Biblical Hermeneutics: toward a theory of reading as the production of meaning. He uses this term to mean the distance between two things, which results in ideas and language being lost.

Croatto mentions three occurrences of distantiation in the process of reading a text. These three distances are between language and speech, between speech and text, and between text and rereading.

The distances between language and speech happen when someone is trying to get a thought from their head into the spoken world. He says that the “badge” of this first distantiation is “the ‘closure’ of meaning. No temporal of spatial distance is involved, of course; the ‘distance’ is of the logical order” (pg. 16). The exact thoughts of the speaker will not be understood by the listener, since the speaker must put into a language or set of signs that the listener must interpret. The speaker will close meaning whenever they speak, while meaning is then opened up for the listener, which they have to interpret for themselves.

Another occurrence of distantiation is between speech and text. This text can either be oral or written. “A text is a ‘texture,’ etymologically, a web, in which the elements of language (words, sentences, literary units, and other elements) are organized according to structural functions that as such produce a meaning” (pg. 16). This is similar to the first distantiation, because as soon as ideas are written down, they are open to interpretation. Also with written texts, there can be hundreds of years between the author writing his or her thoughts and another person reading and interpreting that text. “The disappearance of the author of a text, the shift in addresses, changes in the life context engendering questions about the message—all these factors occasion a distantiation with respect to the first production of meaning, that of the act of discourse” (pg. 34).

The third hermeneutic distantiation occurs between text and rereading. Each time you reread a text, you will come to it with more knowledge than you did the previous time you read it. You will have a larger reservoir or meaning for the text. “The greater the distance, the more numerous will be the perspectives of a rereading of the text” (pg. 34).

These different distances within interpretations of text are important to realize. Whatever the author or speaker was trying to communicate may not match exactly with your interpretations. This is not a bad thing, but can create a richer understanding of a text.

Pre-understanding in Interpretation

Our pre-understanding plays a role in how we interpret biblical texts. Every person will bring some kind of personal idea or history to whatever they interact with in life. We all have experiences that shape how we view whatever else we come in contact with. The same goes for when we read the Bible. We will use what we know and have experienced to give us an idea of what the text is saying to us.

Anthony Thiselton in his essay “Biblical Studies and Theoretical Hermeneutics” from the book The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation describes pre-understanding as that “which we bring to the text in order to acquire a deeper understanding of it.” Just with a surface reading it is hard to look past any personal bias or tendency toward something that you would have. The natural reaction to learning new things, I believe, is to somehow connect it to your own life and experiences. So a person reading a biblical text will attach meaning to the text based on his or her past experiences. It helps us understand what we are reading.

Also, in referencing J.M. Chaldenius, Thiselton says, “all interpretations of the Bible depend on ‘viewpoint’.” If I read a passage of scripture, I will most likely interpret it within the context of a young, white, American female. A young man living in China will probably interpret the same passage very differently. Even a young, white, American female who lives in inner city Chicago will probably interpret the passage differently than me. We would all have a pre-conceived view of the world and how it works, so we would make our interpretations fit that view.

Pre-understanding plays a fairly big role in how we interpret biblical texts. It will affect our surface reading, and it probably would take some effort to try to remove those thoughts when trying to go deeper within the text, without a bias viewpoint.

What is the Bible?

In order for a text to have any authority, we have to give it authority in our lives. Some people could view romance novels as their bible, while the ‘Bible’ that I grew up reading consists of the Old Testament (without Apocrypha) plus the New Testament. What people view as a bible can be any readings that they base their life around and try to live accordingly. So many different writings with the title of ‘bible’ are not similar at all to the Old and New Testaments. For example, if you search any online bookstore, there will be different cooking bibles and guitar bibles, along with others. I think though that when most people refer to the Bible, they will be quoting similar scripture, but there is no guarantee.

‘The Bible’ is the name of the canon, and what is thought of as the Word of God, but I don’t think that God has stopped speaking to people, or has stopped inspiring people to write God’s words. I may view someone’s contemporary writings as having near the same authority as how I view the writings of Paul, depending on whether I believe the author is in line with my view of God and Jesus. The older texts have a wonderful context of being near the time when Christ lived, but having a modern author write in our context is valuable too, I believe. These are men and women who are following God, and who are trying to do God’s will, and share God’s words with everyone.

James Bowley in his book Introduction to Hebrew Bible talks about what we call The Bible as being more of a library than a book. There are so many different authors and writings that are compiled into our canon that to try to wrap it up into one ‘writing’ would be doing an injustice to it. There are also many different types of Bibles for different denominations and religions. Some versions might have a couple more books than the other one, but the majority of the writings will be the same.

A question this brings up then is what do we say when we quote scripture? Can we say, ‘The Bible says…’, or should it be, ‘The author of Deuteronomy says…’. But do we believe that all scripture is inspired by God, and therefore is all the Word of God? So can we just say, ‘God says in Matthew that…’? We also have to remember that not everyone gives every book we have in our Bible authority, and different people have different Bibles, so we need to be aware of this and be sensitive to what others believe and what they have canonized.