Difference between revisions of "Interpretation"

<p> This word is used in different senses by [[Christians]] in the [[Apostolic]] Age. (1) St. Paul applies it to that spiritual ‘gift’ which enabled one to expound the unintelligible utterance known as ‘tongues’ (ἑρμηνείω [&nbsp;1 Corinthians 12:10; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 14:26], διερμηνεύω [&nbsp;1 Corinthians 12:30; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 14:5; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 14:13; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 14:27], διερμηνευτής [&nbsp;1 Corinthians 14:28]). (2) Later writers ‘interpret’ a foreign word by giving its Greek equivalent (ἑρμηνεύω [&nbsp;John 1:42; &nbsp;John 9:7, &nbsp;Hebrews 7:2], διερμηνεύω [&nbsp;Acts 9:36], μεθερμηνεύω [&nbsp;Matthew 1:23; &nbsp;Mark 5:41; &nbsp;Mark 15:22; &nbsp;Mark 15:34, &nbsp;John 1:38; &nbsp;John 1:41, &nbsp;Acts 4:36; &nbsp;Acts 13:8]). when [[Papias]] calls St. Mark St. Peter’s interpreter (ἑρμηνευτής [ Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.)iii. 39]), he may be supposing that St. Peter preached in [[Aramaic]] (or Hebrew) and that St. Mark translated the sermon to the Greek audience. This is historically improbable, however, and possibly Papias means only that St. Mark, since he composed his [[Gospel]] on the basis of St. Peter’s sermons, is thereby St. Peter’s ‘expounder.’ (3) In the sense of Scriptural exposition, the word ‘interpretation’ is rarely used in the NT. The meaning of ‘private interpretation’ in &nbsp;2 Peter 1:20 (ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως) is doubtful, though, in view of what follows, it seems to signify the prophet’s complete subordination to God’s will. In &nbsp;Luke 24:27 (διερμηνεύω) direct reference is made to [[Christian]] interpretation of the OT books-a practice which was very general and very important in the apostolic period. </p> <p> The OT occupied a unique place in the life and thought of the first Christians. St. Paul presupposed his readers’ acquaintance with its writings, which he assumed to be the final court of appeal in all argumentation. Apollos, whom certain Corinthians set up as St. Paul’s rival, was also ‘mighty in the scriptures’ (&nbsp;Acts 18:24). OT language and thought are frequently appropriated by the NT writers. According to H. B. Swete ( <i> Introduction to the OT in Greek </i> , Cambridge, 1900, p. 381f.), there are 78 formal quotations in St. Paul, 46 in the Synoptists, 28 in Hebrews, 23 in Acts , 12 in John, and about a dozen in the remaining books. Even where formal quotations are lacking, OT phraseology is sometimes frequent ( <i> e.g. </i> Rev.). The early Christians, like the Jews, believed in the [[Divine]] origin and authority of Scripture. In spite of his breach with Judaism, St. Paul still held the Law and the [[Commandments]] to be holy, righteous, and good (&nbsp;Romans 7:12), and he repeatedly affirmed that these things were written ‘for our sake’ (&nbsp;Romans 4:23 f.; &nbsp;Romans 15:4, &nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:9 f.; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 10:6; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 10:11). Here he found a clear revelation of God’s purposes and an infallible guide for Christians in matters of conduct and doctrine (cf. &nbsp;Romans 1:2; &nbsp;Romans 3:4; &nbsp;Romans 3:10 ff.; &nbsp;Romans 4:3 ff.; &nbsp;Romans 8:36; &nbsp;Romans 9:6 ff; &nbsp;Romans 10:6 ff.; &nbsp;Romans 11:9 f.; &nbsp;Romans 11:26; Rom_13:11; Rom_15:9 ff.; &nbsp;Romans 15:21, &nbsp;1 Corinthians 6:16; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:8; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:13; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 10:18; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:8 f.; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 14:21; 1Co_14:34; 1Co_15:3; 1Co_15:45; 1Co_15:54; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 1:20; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 3:13 ff; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 6:16 ff; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 8:15; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 9:9, &nbsp;Galatians 3:8; &nbsp;Galatians 3:16; &nbsp;Galatians 3:22). The [[Evangelists]] saw in the OT foreshadowings of Jesus’ career and proof of His Messiahship ( <i> e.g. </i> &nbsp;Matthew 1:22; &nbsp;Matthew 2:5; &nbsp;Matthew 2:15; &nbsp;Matthew 2:23; &nbsp;Matthew 4:14; &nbsp;Matthew 8:17; &nbsp;Matthew 11:7 ff; &nbsp;Matthew 12:17; &nbsp;Matthew 13:35; &nbsp;Matthew 21:5, &nbsp;Mark 1:2 f.; &nbsp;Mark 4:11 f.; &nbsp;Mark 11:9 f.; &nbsp;Mark 12:10 f; &nbsp;Mark 12:36, &nbsp;Mark 14:27, &nbsp;Luke 4:21; &nbsp;Luke 7:27; &nbsp;Luke 24:44, &nbsp;John 12:38; &nbsp;John 15:25; &nbsp;John 17:12; &nbsp;John 19:24; &nbsp;John 19:28; &nbsp;John 19:36). For Matthew OT prophecy is virtually a ‘source’ of information about Jesus’ career, as when &nbsp;Mark 11:1-7, is made to conform to the first evangelist’s interpretation of &nbsp;Zechariah 9:9 (&nbsp;Matthew 21:1-7; see also &nbsp;Matthew 1:22 f., &nbsp;Matthew 2:5 f., &nbsp;Matthew 15:17 f. etc.). </p> <p> OT language serves other important purposes in the Gospels, God speaks in this language at Jesus’ Baptism, and again at His Transfiguration; it is used in the conversation between Jesus and Satan; and it furnishes phraseology for some of Jesus most forceful and solemn pronouncements, where sometimes the sound of Holy Writ seems to be prized above perspicuity ( <i> e.g. </i> &nbsp;Matthew 10:35 ff.; &nbsp;Mark 4:12; &nbsp;Mark 12:36; &nbsp;Mark 15:34). The history of the early community is also Scripturally authenticated (&nbsp;Acts 1:20; &nbsp;Acts 2:16 ff; &nbsp;Acts 4:25 ff.). Thus the NT writers derived not only incidental and descriptive details, but on occasion more important features of their narratives from the OT. This was only natural, since these sacred books were believed to be inspired of God, profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction, and able to make men ‘wise unto salvation’ (&nbsp;2 Timothy 3:15 f. cf. &nbsp;2 Peter 1:19 ff.). Christians gave to the OT all the prestige it had in Judaism, believing that they, through their faith in Christ, had come into possession of the only key to all true interpretation. </p> <p> The exact content and text of the first Christians’ ‘Bible’ are not known. They were doubtless familiar with the three-fold division of the [[Jewish]] canon-the ‘Law,’ the ‘Prophets,’ and the ‘Writings’ (&nbsp;Luke 24:44[?]), but they probably did not discuss questions of canonicity. Their feeling of spiritual elevation left no room for such academic discussions. And in the portions of [[Scripture]] used individual choice seems to have had free play. The evangelists favour the [[Prophets]] and the Psalms, while St. Paul and the author of Hebrews cite mainly from the Pentateuch. But there is scarcely a book of the OT with which some NT writer does not show acquaintance. Obad., Ezr., Neh., and Est. are the only exceptions (according to Toy, <i> [[Quotations]] in the NT </i> , p. vi, n.[Note: . note.]1). Apocryphal books and popular legends are also used (cf. &nbsp;1 Corinthians 10:4, &nbsp;Galatians 3:19, &nbsp;Acts 7:53, &nbsp;2 Timothy 3:8, &nbsp;Hebrews 2:2; &nbsp;Hebrews 11:37, &nbsp;Judges 1:6; &nbsp;Judges 1:9; &nbsp;Judges 1:14). Textual problems seem to have been ignored. Quotations are mostly from the Septuagint, though use of the [[Hebrew]] text has sometimes been supposed. This is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove, since we do not know the exact form of Greek text which a NT writer may have used. A part of the early community ordinarily spoke Aramaic (&nbsp;Acts 6:1), but Greek writers naturally followed the Septuagintrendering, even when the original tradition was in Aramaic or Hebrew. In fact, there seems to have been little thought about slavish adherence to any text. Christians possessed a superior understanding, which allowed them to alter phraseology, to paraphrase freely, or even to cite loosely from memory. </p> <p> Thus their methods were more spontaneous than those of scribism, yet the general character of their interpretation was predominantly Jewish. Its free handling of the text, its disregard for the original setting, its logical vagaries, its slight tendency to become artificial, were all Jewish traits. To illustrate from the NT, &nbsp;Mark 1:2 f. changes the wording of prophecy and disregards its natural meaning in order to make the Christian application possible. A logical <i> non sequitur </i> is illustrated in &nbsp;Mark 12:26 f., where an original statement about the historic earthly career of [[Abraham]] is made the basis for an inference about his future heavenly career. St. Paul’s argument from ‘seed’ and ‘seeds’ (&nbsp;Galatians 3:16), his comparison between [[Hagar]] and [[Sarah]] (&nbsp;Galatians 4:22 ff.), and his interpretation of the OT injunction against muzzling the ox (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:9 f.), all tend to become artificial. Christians appropriated and imitated Jewish <i> Midrashim </i> seemingly without hesitation, as when St. Paul made Christ the spiritual rock (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 10:4; cf. ‘Rabbah’ on &nbsp;Numbers 1:1). They argued from word-derivation (&nbsp;Matthew 1:21 ff.), and from the numerical value of letters (&nbsp;Revelation 13:18; cf. article‘Gemaṭria’ in <i> Jewish Encyclopedia </i> ); and they freely employed figures, types, analogies, allegories ( <i> q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] </i> ). They also copied the more sober type of Haggâdic <i> Midrashim </i> . Their emphasis upon the example of their Master, their preservation of His teaching, their harking back to the ancient worthies, are all in line with Jewish custom. The work of the NT interpreter is not so very unlike that of the ideal scribe of &nbsp;Sirach 39:1 ff. Yet early Christian interpretation did not run to the same extreme of barren artificiality as that of the scribes, nor was it pursued merely for its own sake. As the handmaid of the new faith, it was subordinated to the consciousness of a new spiritual authority in personal experience, a fact which may explain why Christians were partial to OT passages dealing with personal religious life. </p> <p> Literature.-C. H. Toy, <i> Quotations in the NT </i> , New York, 1884, where earlier literature is cited; F. Johnson, <i> The Quotations of the New [[Testament]] from the Old </i> , London, 1896; A. Clemen, <i> Der Gebrauch des AT </i> [Note: T Altes Testament.] <i> in den neutest. Schriften </i> , Gütersloh, 1895; E. Hühn, <i> Die alttest. Citate und Reminiscenzen im NT </i> , Tübingen, 1900; W. Dittmar, <i> Vetus Textamentum in Novo </i> , Göttingen, 1903; E. Grafe, <i> Das Urchristentum und das AT </i> [Note: T Altes Testament.], Tübingen, 1907; P. Glaue, <i> Die Vorlesung heiliger Schriften im Gottesdienste </i> , i., Berlin, 1907; S. J. Case, ‘The NT Writers’ [[Interpretation]] of the OT,’ in <i> BW </i> [Note: W Biblical World.]xxxviii. [1911] 92ff. The more general treatises on [[Hermeneutics]] usually have a section on the apostolic period. </p> <p> S. J. Case. </p>

<p> The [[Bible]] is no ordinary book. It is the written Word of God, communicating God’s purposes to the people of the world. But since those purposes are based on God’s values, not the values of the world, only those whose minds are instructed by God’s Spirit can properly understand them. The Spirit of God is the true interpreter of the Word of God (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 2:10-12). </p> <p> The work of the Holy Spirit </p> <p> Just as the Spirit of God inspired the writing of the [[Scriptures]] in the first place (&nbsp;2 Timothy 3:15-16; see INSPIRATION), so the Spirit helps Christians to interpret and apply those Scriptures (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 2:13). As they understand the circumstances in which the Holy Spirit inspired the original writings, the same Spirit can apply the meaning of those writings to them today. If Christians want the Scriptures to have a relevant message for them, their first duty is to find out what the Scriptures mean. God has given the Holy Spirit not to make Bible study unnecessary, but to make it meaningful. </p> <p> To help Christians towards a clearer understanding of his Word, God has given to his church teachers, people specially equipped by the Spirit for this task (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 12:8; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 12:28; &nbsp;Ephesians 4:11-14; see TEACHER). Nevertheless, Christians have a duty to test what their teachers preach or write (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 14:29; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 5:21), and if they are to do this satisfactorily they must know how to interpret the Scriptures. </p> <p> '''Background and purpose''' </p> <p> Because the world of the Bible was different from the world today, readers should learn whatever they can about the geographical and social features of the Bible lands. In particular they must understand the historical setting of the books of the Bible. They will understand the messages of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament letter-writers only as they understand the circumstances in which the writers wrote. They will need to know who the writers were, when and where they wrote, and what purpose they had in writing (e.g. &nbsp;Micah 1:1; &nbsp;Micah 2:1-3; &nbsp;Haggai 1:1-6; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:1-2; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:11; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 5:1; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 7:1; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 3:1-6). </p> <p> Some books clearly announce their subject and purpose (e.g. Nahum; Galatians), but others require readers to work through the material to find its central theme (e.g. Ecclesiastes; Ephesians). They may also have to consider what sources the writer has drawn upon and how he has used them in developing his message (e.g. &nbsp;Luke 1:1-4). As they understand a book’s overall purpose, they will have a better understanding of the stories and teachings within the book (&nbsp;John 20:30-31). </p> <p> '''Kind of literature''' </p> <p> Among the many forms within the Bible are prose narratives, poems, wisdom sayings, laws, visions, letters, genealogies and debates. Readers must interpret whatever they are reading according to the kind of literature it is. People in Old Testament times recognized the differences between a teacher of the law, a prophet and a wisdom teacher (&nbsp;Jeremiah 18:18) and interpreted their writings accordingly (see LAW; PROPHECY; WISDOM LITERATURE). </p> <p> Unless people are reading the Bible in the original languages (Hebrew in the Old Testament, Greek in the New), whatever they are reading is a translation (see MANUSCRIPTS; SCRIPTURES). The words and expressions that the original writers used have to be understood in the context of their ancient cultures. Like other languages, the languages of the Bible contain idioms, word pictures and symbolism, and readers will misunderstand the writer if they interpret literally what he meant as a symbol or figure of speech. </p> <p> In this respect it is particularly important to understand the features of apocalyptic writing (e.g. parts of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah and Revelation) and the characteristics of Hebrew poetry (e.g. Psalms and many of the prophets). (For details see APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE; POETRY.) </p> <p> '''Words and their meanings''' </p> <p> Although readers must bear in mind such matters as background, purpose and literary form, their main concern is with the words themselves. This does not mean that readers must carry out a word by word study. In any language the unit of meaning will vary, depending on the style of the writer and the kind of writing. In some places much may depend on one or two words (e.g. &nbsp;Galatians 3:16), but in others one central idea may be built up over several lines (e.g. &nbsp;Psalms 118:1-4). </p> <p> A word’s meaning is decided by the way the writer uses it in the sentence, paragraph or book, not by the way it developed out of other words in the long-distant past. A word may have different meanings in different contexts (e.g. ‘sinner’ in &nbsp;Ecclesiastes 2:26; &nbsp;Luke 7:39; &nbsp;Galatians 2:15), and it is possible that none of these is directly related to the word’s linguistic origins (or etymology). Also, words change their meanings over the years. The meaning of a word in the Old Testament may be different from its meaning in the New, and different again from its meaning today (e.g. see HOLINESS; PROPHET). </p> <p> '''Progressive revelation''' </p> <p> The writing of the books of the Bible was spread over more than a thousand years, and throughout that time God was progressively revealing his purposes. He made known his purposes for the human race not in one moment at the beginning of history, but stage by stage as he prepared people for the fuller revelation that came through Jesus Christ (&nbsp;Hebrews 1:1-2; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:10-12). There is therefore a basic unity to the Bible; it is one book. Although readers may understand each of the individual Bible books in its own context, they must also understand each book in the context of the Bible as a whole (see BIBLE). </p> <p> It is therefore important to understand where each book of the Bible belongs in the developing purposes of God. This is especially so in the case of Old Testament books. </p> <p> By interpreting a book in relation to its place in God’s ongoing revelation, Christians will avoid two extremes. They will not treat the book as if it is merely an ancient document of historical interest, but neither will they try to ‘christianize’ the book by giving ‘spiritual’ meanings to its details. The Old Testament exists as Scripture in its own right (&nbsp;2 Timothy 3:15-16) and Christians should recognize this. But because of their knowledge of the New Testament, they may see added significance in the Old (cf. &nbsp;Leviticus 16:1-28 with &nbsp;Hebrews 9:6-14). (For further details see QUOTATIONS; TYPOLOGY.) </p> <p> However, the Christians’ knowledge of the New Testament does not change the meaning of the Old. The Old Testament revelation might have been imperfect, but only in the sense of being incomplete, not in the sense of being incorrect. It was like the framework of a building still under construction. The fuller revelation in Christ does not correct the Old Testament revelation, but develops it and brings it to fulfilment (&nbsp;Hebrews 10:1; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:10-12). </p> <p> '''Accepting the Bible’s authority''' </p> <p> Even when readers allow for variations because of the progressive nature of biblical revelation, they will still meet cases where different statements or ideas appear hard to reconcile (cf. &nbsp;Matthew 27:46 with &nbsp;Luke 23:46; cf. &nbsp;John 10:28 with &nbsp;Hebrews 6:4-6). It is dangerous to ‘adjust’ the meaning of one or the other to force it into some neatly ordered scheme of theological interpretation that people have worked out. In reading the Bible Christians need patience. In some cases answers to problems may come later, as their understanding of the Bible increases; in others they may not come at all. </p> <p> Christians must also respect the authority of the Bible. They must allow the Bible to say what it wants to say, regardless of what they would like it to say. They come to the Bible as those who learn, not as those who want to make it do things for them. Their first duty is not to bring isolated verses together to ‘prove’ their beliefs, but to accept the revelation in the form God gave it and to submit to its teachings. As they allow it to change their thinking and behaviour, they will have a better knowledge of the will of God and a greater likeness to the character of Christ (&nbsp;John 13:17; &nbsp;Romans 12:2; &nbsp;Colossians 3:10; &nbsp;Colossians 3:16-17). </p>

<p> '''(1):''' ''' (''' n.) The sense given by an interpreter; exposition or explanation given; meaning; as, commentators give various interpretations of the same passage of Scripture. </p> <p> '''(2):''' ''' (''' n.) The power or explaining. </p> <p> '''(3):''' ''' (''' n.) An artist's way of expressing his thought or embodying his conception of nature. </p> <p> '''(4):''' ''' (''' n.) The act or process of applying general principles or formulae to the explanation of the results obtained in special cases. </p> <p> '''(5):''' ''' (''' n.) The act of interpreting; explanation of what is obscure; translation; version; construction; as, the interpretation of a foreign language, of a dream, or of an enigma. </p>