Good Hermeneutics books

[Blake Reas]

I would like to know of any good books on Hermeneutics. I have Fee's "Read the Bible for all it's Worth" and "Biblical Hermeneutics." Just curious.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[smilax]

Anthony Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics. This one does a monstrous critical study of a whole bunch of different theories, ranging from reader response to higher criticism and Reformation hermeneutics, as well as the practical implications.

Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? This one interacts heavily with the postmodern argument that (in a nutshell) you can't actually be sure of the meaning because there are so many different interpretations.

Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period is quite helpful, too.

[Blake Reas]

smilax:
Anthony Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics. This one does a monstrous critical study of a whole bunch of different theories, ranging from reader response to higher criticism and Reformation hermeneutics, as well as the practical implications.

Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? This one interacts heavily with the postmodern argument that (in a nutshell) you can't actually be sure of the meaning because there are so many different interpretations.

Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period is quite helpful, too.

Thanks! I have heard of Vanhoozer's and I think Longnecker's but not of Thielston.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[smilax]

Gordon Fee previously had the most comprehensive commentary ever on I Corinthians, and then Thiselton released his... That's how I know the guy, anyway.

It Is Written is a compilation by D. A. Carson about how Scripture uses Scripture. There are lots of interesting things to be found in that one, too.

Of course, ultimately, I would say that we should learn our hermeneutics from the Bible itself. But that makes the dispies uncomfortable...

[GrayPilgrim]

For specifically OT Hermeneutics, I have more of a recipe for developing Hermeneutics.

[list=1]
Read the methodology section of John Sailhamer's Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach, this book more than any other shaped the way I read the Bible. If I ever teach a Hermeneutics class, it will be on the list.
Then read Hans Frei's The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (his conclusions are all wrong, but they show us how the "pre-critical readers let the text speak for itself).
Then read Meier Sternberg’s The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, he is Jewish so be ready for his anti-Christian biases
[/list=1]

I would recommend reading Sailhammer even if you don't tackle the others, as they will probably tackle you in the process, which they did me.

Why do I like Sailhamer's book so much? It's actually simple--he argues that we should let the Bible interpret the Bible. What is so revolutionary about that? Well most books tell you that you need to know the history of the ancient world to know the Bible. Well the problem is knowing which of these histories is appropriate. Then even if we know the "right" history, is not that history now replaced the Bible as the supreme authority in interpretation of Scripture. Let me give you an example. IN my Gospels and Johannine Lit class at TEDS when we got to the book of Revelation, Osborne taught the book of Revelation as if it is just a retelling of first century history in weird language. However, if you look to your OT all the imagery starts to become understandable. For example, the four horsemen are not Parthian raiders, but rather they are the horsemen of Zechariah.

Sailhamer's approach is simple:

First, when we come to the Bible should we interpret the text or try to reconstruct the event? It's the text! We cannot know or reconstruct the event. It is lost to us. It does not matter to us if some foot soldier at the Battle of Carcemesh has athlete's foot! It does matter to us that the Babylonian's defeated Assyria, and that the Egyptians killed Josiah on their way there, as it set up the sad history of the final demise of Judah. Hmmm...What is in the text of the Bible? The death of Josiah and the defeat of Babylon. To use a NT allusion, none of the Gospel writers emphasize Jesus' pain on the Cross b/c it is not the theological importance of the crucifixion, rather it is the imputation of our sin to him and God's turning his back on him while on the cross, so they emphasize that and not the physical sufferings.

Second, should we view the Bible Critically or Canonically? If we view it canonically then we see that the ordering of the books takes on significance. For example in the Jewish ordering, Ruth follows Proverbs. Therefore, we see that the noble wife "eshet xyl" is Ruth (cf. Pro. 31:10, Rut 3:11). As a second example let us look at 2 Chronicles, which in the Hebrew Bible ends the OT. Let’s look at the last verse of 2 Chron.

"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him. Let him go up.'"

Who is this person that can lead the people up and build the true house? Well if we look to the first book of the NT, we see who it is. Remember, that Chronicles has given us the genealogy from Abraham through David up to the time of Exile of the Kings of Judah. So now, we place Matthew next to it canonically and we see that Jesus is the great leader who will lead his people up and restore the fortunes of Judah and Israel. However, as the Gospels show it is not the way that they expected, [see John Sailhamer “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible” in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 44, No. 1 March 2001].

Third, should we look at the Bible descriptively or confessionally? As believers, we look to the Bible as God’s communication to us. To look at it in a cold detached way leaves us in the lurch. For instance, an agnostic or atheist can look at the Scriptures and tell you what it says in Romans 12. However, if we leave off at what it says then we will fail to understand what it means and how to apply it to our lives in such a way that is pleasing to God and will bring Glory to his name.

Sailhamer adds a fourth category of should we read synchronically or diachronically. He argues for a synchronic reading. This states that even if we could find “proof” that there were multiple authors for Isaiah (which I highly doubt, I can give you some stuff on that if you like) that we should read it as it is now, because as it was passed down to us within the confessional community is the locus of revelation, not in an attempt to find theorized Ur-texts.

GP

[Blake Reas]

GrayPilgrim:
For specifically OT Hermeneutics, I have more of a recipe for developing Hermeneutics.

[list=1]
Read the methodology section of John Sailhamer's Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach, this book more than any other shaped the way I read the Bible. If I ever teach a Hermeneutics class, it will be on the list.
Then read Hans Frei's The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (his conclusions are all wrong, but they show us how the "pre-critical readers let the text speak for itself).
Then read Meier Sternberg’s The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, he is Jewish so be ready for his anti-Christian biases
[/list=1]

I would recommend reading Sailhammer even if you don't tackle the others, as they will probably tackle you in the process, which they did me.

Why do I like Sailhamer's book so much? It's actually simple--he argues that we should let the Bible interpret the Bible. What is so revolutionary about that? Well most books tell you that you need to know the history of the ancient world to know the Bible. Well the problem is knowing which of these histories is appropriate. Then even if we know the "right" history, is not that history now replaced the Bible as the supreme authority in interpretation of Scripture. Let me give you an example. IN my Gospels and Johannine Lit class at TEDS when we got to the book of Revelation, Osborne taught the book of Revelation as if it is just a retelling of first century history in weird language. However, if you look to your OT all the imagery starts to become understandable. For example, the four horsemen are not Parthian raiders, but rather they are the horsemen of Zechariah.

Sailhamer's approach is simple:

First, when we come to the Bible should we interpret the text or try to reconstruct the event? It's the text! We cannot know or reconstruct the event. It is lost to us. It does not matter to us if some foot soldier at the Battle of Carcemesh has athlete's foot! It does matter to us that the Babylonian's defeated Assyria, and that the Egyptians killed Josiah on their way there, as it set up the sad history of the final demise of Judah. Hmmm...What is in the text of the Bible? The death of Josiah and the defeat of Babylon. To use a NT allusion, none of the Gospel writers emphasize Jesus' pain on the Cross b/c it is not the theological importance of the crucifixion, rather it is the imputation of our sin to him and God's turning his back on him while on the cross, so they emphasize that and not the physical sufferings.

Second, should we view the Bible Critically or Canonically? If we view it canonically then we see that the ordering of the books takes on significance. For example in the Jewish ordering, Ruth follows Proverbs. Therefore, we see that the noble wife "eshet xyl" is Ruth (cf. Pro. 31:10, Rut 3:11). As a second example let us look at 2 Chronicles, which in the Hebrew Bible ends the OT. Let’s look at the last verse of 2 Chron.

"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him. Let him go up.'"

Who is this person that can lead the people up and build the true house? Well if we look to the first book of the NT, we see who it is. Remember, that Chronicles has given us the genealogy from Abraham through David up to the time of Exile of the Kings of Judah. So now, we place Matthew next to it canonically and we see that Jesus is the great leader who will lead his people up and restore the fortunes of Judah and Israel. However, as the Gospels show it is not the way that they expected, [see John Sailhamer “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible” in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 44, No. 1 March 2001].

Third, should we look at the Bible descriptively or confessionally? As believers, we look to the Bible as God’s communication to us. To look at it in a cold detached way leaves us in the lurch. For instance, an agnostic or atheist can look at the Scriptures and tell you what it says in Romans 12. However, if we leave off at what it says then we will fail to understand what it means and how to apply it to our lives in such a way that is pleasing to God and will bring Glory to his name.

Sailhamer adds a fourth category of should we read synchronically or diachronically. He argues for a synchronic reading. This states that even if we could find “proof” that there were multiple authors for Isaiah (which I highly doubt, I can give you some stuff on that if you like) that we should read it as it is now, because as it was passed down to us within the confessional community is the locus of revelation, not in an attempt to find theorized Ur-texts.

GP

Hey thanks for the extensive reply! I would be very interested in the authorship of Isaiah. Historical Criticism is a interest of mine along with anyother -ism that has to do with Biblical Studies! I am interested in both the Old and New Testaments so if you want to discuss something I am better in the NT than the OT.
I just about bought the book by Salihamer a few weeks ago in our book store at Southern but I decided not to :( . That makes me mad now that you said it was so good.
So you went to Trinity Evangelical? That is really cool that is where I want to go when I grow up;) (I am a freshman in undergrad at The Southern Baptist Theo. Seminary) but I have a long way to go before I have to make that decision well anyway talk to you later.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[bar Jonah]

Bob Enyart's "The Plot" is both mind-blowing and life-changing in its scope. It had a tremendous impact on how I read scripture. But I'm sure most of you here have been thoroughly warned of its heresy. ;)

[GrayPilgrim]

Blake Reas:
Hey thanks for the extensive reply! I would be very interested in the authorship of Isaiah. Historical Criticism is a interest of mine along with anyother -ism that has to do with Biblical Studies! I am interested in both the Old and New Testaments so if you want to discuss something I am better in the NT than the OT.
I just about bought the book by Salihamer a few weeks ago in our book store at Southern but I decided not to :( . That makes me mad now that you said it was so good.
So you went to Trinity Evangelical? That is really cool that is where I want to go when I grow up;) (I am a freshman in undergrad at The Southern Baptist Theo. Seminary) but I have a long way to go before I have to make that decision well anyway talk to you later.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

I'll start a new thread on Isaiah.

Yeah Jaltus and I met there, and became good friends.Hey start preparing now for Sem. The most important way is making sure that you look each day to Him for guidance. I would of course reccomend TEDS :) as the most suitable institution for sucha fine and upstanding young gentleman as yourself :thumb:

[Blake Reas]

[QUOTE]GrayPilgrim:
I'll start a new thread on Isaiah.

Yeah Jaltus and I met there, and became good friends.Hey start preparing now for Sem. The most important way is making sure that you look each day to Him for guidance. I would of course reccomend TEDS :) as the most suitable institution for sucha fine and upstanding young gentleman as yourself :thumb: [/QUOT

Thanks, I know some of the issues with the book of Isaiah I know that it has been split into a bunch of different sections etc. I have read quite a few articles on it, I think that burden of proof is upon the Critical scholars.

What year are you in at Ohio States Doctoral program? Or should I say how close to getting you doctrate are you?
In Christ,
Blake Reas

[GrayPilgrim]

I'm only taking technical German at OSU. I have applied to Cambridge, Sheffield and Trinity for my doctorate. So you will probably graduating from your undergraduate studies about the time I will from whereever I end up working on doing my studies.

GP

[I majored in Hebrew at OSU for my undergrad]

[geebob]

Why do I like Sailhamer's book so much? It's actually simple--he argues that we should let the Bible interpret the Bible. What is so revolutionary about that? Well most books tell you that you need to know the history of the ancient world to know the Bible. Well the problem is knowing which of these histories is appropriate.

So how do you deal with the problem that men in the ancient world read some scriptures significantly differently than we do?

[GrayPilgrim]

geebob:
So how do you deal with the problem that men in the ancient world read some scriptures significantly differently than we do?

It's not that we ignore this, it is simply that we don't make it determinative. Since so much of Scripture, if not the whole thing, is in fact giving us an alternative to the ANE's conception of reality, would then using their conception of reality be prudent? There is a proper place for the history of interpretation, but first and foremost let Scripture interpret Scripture, see my example of the four horsemen of Revelation. Besides, if we were to slow down and listen to the text as opposed to superimpose our belief structures on to the text, is their anything that the text has to say that we need Hamurapi or Gilgamesh or Aqhat to inform us of?

GP

[George Blaisdell]

Gray Pilgrim writes:


quote:geebob:

> So how do you deal with the problem that men in the ancient > world read some scriptures significantly differently than we do?

GP:

> It's not that we ignore this, it is simply that we don't make it > determinative.

One of the very early problems I had in reading scripture was the fact that it was so sbviously written from within a living context of culture and praxis of which I knew nothing, and of which I could at best come to know but little. The question of how to know the truths of scripture might be found in scripture itself. So I looked there, and found that the ground and pillar of the truths is the Church, h ekklesia... I looked in vain to find scripture to say that such a pillar and ground is h grafh [the written], for the written kills, while the Spirit makes alive...

So I concluded that maybe I should seek the Spirit within Church... Most Christians tend to generally agree...

> Since so much of Scripture, if not the whole thing, is in fact giving > us an alternative to the ANE's conception of reality, would then > using their conception of reality be prudent?

No.

But the early Church, which had the work of bringing the faith to these pagan cultures, had a conception of reality to which it would behoove us conceptualists to give sober consideration.

> There is a proper place for the history of interpretation, but first > and foremost let Scripture interpret Scripture, see my example of > the four horsemen of Revelation.

This is good advice. Yet as a defining hermaneutic, it can head off into some really dark alleys. I have seen, on the net, two people who do this disagreeing with each other, and ONLY quoting scripture in their disagreement, so that what you had was this spectre of the Bible arguing with itself... There's only so much of that a person should lay eyes on...

> Besides, if we were to slow down and listen to the text as > opposed to superimpose our belief structures on to the text, is > there anything that the text has to say that we need Hamurapi > or Gilgamesh or Aqhat to inform us of?

Good grief no! But the early patristic understanding of the person, which is the Biblical one, is utterly NOT the now neo-post-modern one, and the early Church Fathers had a keen insight into the issues of addressing the pagan cultures in which they were shepherding their flocks... Just as did Paul in his addressing those pesky Corinthians, who couldn't seem to get past their porneiras - Paul actually prescribed marriage as a palliative for this problem...

And Paul was an early Church father ["Ye have many teachers, but few fathers in Christ."] There is a huge difference in kind between a teacher of the Gospel and a father in Christ...

So that when we approach a text, we would be well advised to first go to the early Church's writings on it, for they are writing from within the Church, the pillar and ground of the truths, and they grew up speaking the koine Greek in which the text is written, and they are fathers, not just teachers...

This is a hermaneutic that seems to have been lost along the way of western scholarship somehow...

geo

[Arminian]

Then read Hans Frei's The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (his conclusions are all wrong, but they show us how the "pre-critical readers let the text speak for itself).

Hans is always right. He is misunderstood, however.

Hans!:thumb:
Sailhamer! :thumb:

Btw, get Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect and read M. J. Wells' article. You'll thank me when you're done.

[wienerdog]

I'm a little surprised that Grant Osborne's The Hermeneutical Spiral hasn't been mentioned, but maybe it's because it's more basic than most of the other suggestions.

[Jaltus]

Yeah, Osborne's book isn't bad, just a bit too basic. He also misses a few things IIRC.

Sheesh, should I be saying that? I am currently his TA.

[dizzle]

To give a good nondispensational hermeneutic, I highly recommend Hans K. La Rondelle's "The Israel of God in Prophecy." It is the bomb!

[GrayPilgrim]

03-03-2003 @ 11:20 AM
Jaltus:

Yeah, Osborne's book isn't bad, just a bit too basic. He also misses a few things IIRC.

Sheesh, should I be saying that? I am currently his TA.

:nc: :nc: :nc:

[Jaltus]

Hey, it wasn't MY choice, I was assigned by Yarbrough since he is on Sabbatical this semester.

[TheFiveSolas]

Blake,
I would recommend Dr. Michael Horton's Covenant and Eschatology.

(Side note: For those of you at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Professor Horton's work was endorsed by Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer)

[Jaltus]

TFS,

We had to read it for Vanhoozer's class on Prolegomena.

[quetzalphoenix]

03-05-2003 @ 05:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=28098#post28098)
Jaltus:

TFS,

We had to read it for Vanhoozer's class on Prolegomena.


I have to admit that I am envious you had Vanhoozer for class. I read his Is There a Meaning in this Text? after grappling with po-mo lit crit theory (and its implications for my life in general!!) and it was very helpful. I've since read Thiselton and started to look into Searle and Wittgenstein myself. I'm actually hoping to do PhD work in hermeneutics...if I can ever narrow down what I want to study!

[Woman]

GP:
none of the Gospel writers emphasize Jesus' pain on the Cross b/c it is not the theological importance of the crucifixion, rather it is the imputation of our sin to him and God's turning his back on him while on the cross, so they emphasize that and not the physical sufferings.

Will you go into a bit more detail on this. This brings me up short when I'm being told that God and Christ are one and the same, that it was Christ that created the world in 6 days.

George:
But the early Church, which had the work of bringing the faith to these pagan cultures, had a conception of reality to which it would behoove us conceptualists to give sober consideration.

Will you elaborate on this?

[Socrates]

GP wrote (and I found all of it very helpful -- so Sailhamer has his good points after all :brow: :thumb:):

none of the Gospel writers emphasize Jesus' pain on the Cross b/c it is not the theological importance of the crucifixion, rather it is the imputation of our sin to him and God's turning his back on him while on the cross, so they emphasize that and not the physical sufferings.

Woman asked:Will you go into a bit more detail on this. This brings me up short when I'm being told that God and Christ are one and the same, that it was Christ that created the world in 6 days.JPH is discussing this in Theology Wing » Religion 101 » Did They Think Jesus Was God? In short, the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God and three Persons. So they are one in BEING not one in PERSON.

When Trinitarians says "Jesus is God", the word "God" is a functioning as a predicate not an identity. The grammar of John 1:1 is very tight on this. That is, as JPH says, "Jesus shares the attributes and nature of deity." This is in line with Colossians 2:9 "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form". "God" in the proposition "Jesus is God" is NOT a proper name in ths instance. So Jesus is fully God, but Jesus is the Son, not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. All these three Persons "share the attributes and nature of deity."

In fact, Woman has hit on a key problem with the Modalist heresy. This teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are merely modes of God's outworking. But during the Crucifixion, God the Father "laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6).