Methods Of Study Bible

Methods Of Study Bible

Certainly we cannot and must not try to limit or master God's sovereign self-revelation by human methods. The living activity of the Holy Spirit is above and beyond all systems of communication. Methodology is appropriate and necessary, however, insofar as the Bible was written and is read by human beings. Methods serve to clarify and prepare the understanding of the Bible; their character is auxiliary. They help to remove obstacles hindering or falsifying the process of listening to the message. Adequate methodology reflects the manifold dimensions of life. The Biblical message originated in life and aims at being experienced anew in life. This process comprises various cultures, ages, circumstances, societies, people, languages, traditions, emotions. Methods follow certain presuppositions, concerning what people can know and communicate. Methodology, therefore, touches our understanding of reality, experience, and reason. Methods must be open to general testing, not self-contradictory, and evident. Not everyone has the same experiences which others have; and we must be aware of so far unknown aspects of reality. This requires from methodology that it does not narrow down experiences to be communicated, but rather leaves room for all the dimensions of life.

Historical Observations As we have the Biblical message in the form of texts written in ancient languages by people 2000 to 3000 years ago, the traditional methods concentrated on questions of literature, language, and history. The “historical and literal sense” became predominant, not only since the time of the Protestant Reformation, but even before, despite the many attempts in the Middle Ages to detect “deeper” meanings in the text (about doctrine, ethics, and eschatology). The Reformation criticized the abuse of the so-called “fourfold sense of Scripture,” emphasizing that we must not find anything in the text which was not intended by the authors. Scripture is clear, not obscure. Protestantism, in connection with modern thinking, has sometimes tended, however, to become preoccupied with literary, linguistic, and historical observations only. Modern research added a number of aspects along these lines; comparative religion, archeology, source and form criticism, sociology and psychology of religion, philosophies of historism and existentialism, etc. Again and again, therefore, the importance of actually understanding the word and, even more, of a theological interpretation had to be emphasized, in order not to get lost in many outward details. In recent times the role of the interpreter, bringing personal traditions and expectations to the text, and the process of communication (the relation between sender and receiver, codification, etc.) widened the horizon of a comprehensive approach to the Bible.

Basic Approaches The most common method takes a historical approach. It starts with the text and possible variant readings (textual criticism) and the context, analyses the vocabulary and grammar (philology), investigates possible written and oral sources (literary and tradition-criticism), considers the shape and style of the text (form-criticism) and the life setting of the tradition (so-called “Sitz im Leben”). It goes back to the historical origin of what is reported and sketches the situation in which the text was written (historical criticism). The author's contribution and intention (redactional criticism) usually conclude the course of the method.

Compared to the traditional approach with its historical view-point, the theory of communication emphasizes the functional and present (synhychronic) aspects. What was a text written for, what did it effect, what is its “pragmatic intention”? The question of history ranges second. The approach is closely related to rhetoric (the art of speech), to semantics (the meaning of expressions) to semiotics (the meaning of signs), i.e. to all sorts of communicational aspects. In practice the method deals with three dimensions of a text. The surface dimension is made up of the words as verbal, literary signs, composed according to the rules of a language (grammar, syntax). Their exact relation among one another has to be clarified. The second dimension of the text deals with the meaning of the words and sentences. What was the author saying by using and combining certain expressions? In which tradition was the writer at home? The third and basic dimension has to do with the function of a text, in particular with the relation between author and recipient. Texts usually want to achieve something—to change or confirm an opinion, comfort or persuade a person. Values, emotions, actions, attitudes are involved both on the side of the author and of the addressee. The question needs consideration whether author and recipient communicate on different levels, one communicating on the level of information about facts, the other, however, on that of personal relationships.

The methods need not be mutually exclusive but should assist each other. In addition, every method must be aware of the wide range of reality. Every event and document can and must be considered from the various perspectives of human knowledge, such as social and political sciences, humanities, economy, psychology of religion, value systems, etc.

Practical Suggestions No set of methods can claim to be the most perfect one. We should avoid any schematism, too. There are, however, certain steps in the interpretation of Biblical texts, following a rather natural sequence, gained from experience.

1. After the first reading of the text the interpreter's own relation to it needs some clarification. Is the text new or familiar—perhaps too familiar? Does it remind you of previous events (sermons, situations)? What are your feelings about the text: do you like it, or is it alien or rather abstract? The interpreter thus reflects on a personal attitude to the text. Furthermore, you try to formulate a preliminary description of what the text speaks about.

2. The interpreter continues considering the text as a whole to define its character more clearly. Is the passage a more or less independent unit? Where does it begin and end? What are its relations to the context? After that, the structure of the text may be analysed. Are there indications of subsections with logical or other links? Does it lead to a climax? What is of central importance? In the same way the key persons and/or terms should be located. Does the text contain essential points of activity, qualification, description, judgment, etc.? In the course of these observations the nature of the text receives further clarification. Is it a narrative, a hymn, a psalm, an admonition, an argumentation, etc.? What can be normally expected in such portions? What is surprising?

3. It is advisable to ask at this point the so-called journalist's questions: Who wrote, when, where, to whom, why, what for? These questions cannot be answered with the same accuracy for all parts of the Bible, since we lack information sometimes. The available information is collected in handbooks, introductions, and commentaries to the Bible. It helps to reconstruct the original situation of the text, to understand the needs and expectations of the people involved, to see the manifold aspects of reality touched, and to avoid wrong applications if important aspects have changed today. The interpreter should ask the question, what is really helpful to understand the message, in order not to do too little or too much.

4. The background of the text is further analysed along the lines of “this reminds of” or “this seems to be taken from”. Every author uses traditions, often in smaller, sometimes even in larger units. Are there any quotations or allusions? Bible concordances and dictionaries are the best help at this point, not to forget a sound Bible knowledge. It is important to locate the specific message of a text in the longer course of God's history with His people.

5. A detailed analysis of the passage can now be made. It is helpful to compare different translations; occasionally they may even reflect variant readings of the original. Helpful, too, is the method of translators to cut a text into its smallest components of meaning, i.e. into short and simple sentences. (Even a single adjective e.g. might be transformed into a small sentence). The translation and analysis thus becomes a paraphrase, i.e. a reformulation in our own words, usually somewhat longer than the original.

6. What is the contribution of the text, first in the original situation, then also in the history of the early church, the entire history of salvation? Contribution comprises both effect and message, activity and doctrine. What could have happened if these words had not been given to Jeremiah's or James' generation? What would be lacking if that message had not been preserved by Luke? Which details would cause us to suffer clarity or completeness in our knowledge about Jesus Christ, the church, or ethics? In so asking the interpreter will get a better glance of the specific value of the text.

7. As an interpreter, you must not think you are the first and only recipient of the text. Others in the history of the church have read it before; their experiences and reactions are worth a comparison (so-called “history of reception,” found in good commentaries). This may also help avoiding a one-sided interpretation by pointing to a more balanced picture of the Biblical revelation. Equally, the Biblical message was and is not given just to individuals but rather to the people of God. The essential life-setting, therefore, is the church and its service. The final test to an adequate interpretation of the Bible is whether it leads to gratitude and praise, to service and mission.

Wiard Popkes