Resources for "I don't know" Bible interpretation

I'm not asking about apophatic theology which says "we can only say what it is not" nor am I asking about unknowability which says "we can't know", but rather I am asking about reading the Bible giving its statements broader (or narrower) meaning than the text actually supports, making it possible to have a definitive answer where the text of the Bible has none. Do you know any resources on exegesis or hermeneutics that stress or have a section on techniques to encourage us to answer with a humble "I don't know" rather than repeating bad semantics/exegesis.

The context for the question is some works on apologetics that add "only" or "all" to many proof texts that do not actual say or imply that.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DAL

You recommended it one time. It’s a start:

1. https://www.logos.com/product/204164/logic-and-the-bible
2. https://www.logos.com/product/204174/when-is-an-example-binding
3. https://www.logos.com/product/204153/under-bondage-to-the-law-of-christ

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180625#Comment_1180625

Thanks DAL, but what I am looking for is not logic or semantics per se, it is humilty, self-awareness, and an awareness of the skills of the Deceiver i.e. the willingness to admit the possibility one is wrong, that the other has a point even if not completely right, the willingness to admit one does not know. This should fall in hermeneutics and exegesis in a wholistic sense but may be shoved into spiritual growth/ faith development in some traditions.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

I am asking about reading the Bible giving its statements broader (or narrower) meaning than the text actually supports

what I am looking for is not logic or semantics per se, it is humilty, self-awareness... the willingness to admit one does not know. This should fall in hermeneutics and exegesis in a wholistic sense but may be shoved into spiritual growth/ faith development in some traditions.

Hi, MJ!

How about St. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana with it’s ponderings on signs and things signified, literal sense, metaphorical signs, allegories, spiritual sense. The Church Father writes: “So, dear reader, as soon as, furnished with this advice, you are no longer hindered by not knowing what signs mean—being gentle and humble of heart, submitting to Christ’s easy yoke, and burdened with his light load, being founded and rooted and built up in love, and so not liable to be puffed up by knowledge—you must now approach the consideration and discussion of ambiguous signs in the scriptures.”

Coming to modern times, Friedrich Schleiermacher’s hermeneutical circle? Hans Georg Gadamer’s fusion of the two horizons (past and present) in interpreting texts? Kevin Vanhoozer has “a hermeneutics of humility” that I’m not that much acquainted with. Maybe worth checking out?

Sensus plenior as taught by Raymond E. Brown?

Here we come to biblicism and historicism “as siblings under the skin: both are “originalists” insofar as they tend to regard the original meaning (what the text meant) as sufficient to establish the final meaning (what it means).” (George Hunsinger, Brazos Commentary on Philippians). Basically he raises the question: Is the segregation of exegesis and application (or meaning and significance) warranted?

Then there are the more self-aware foreign? agenda-driven reading styles: reading against the grain, hermeneutics of suspicion, reader-response criticism. These three aren’t perhaps very humble enterprises, but nevertheless bringing self-awareness of “hidden agendas” or presuppositions lurking in the background etc.

Gregory Lawhorn

I'm not asking about apophatic theology which says "we can only say what it is not" nor am I asking about unknowability which says "we can't know", but rather I am asking about reading the Bible giving its statements broader (or narrower) meaning than the text actually supports, making it possible to have a definitive answer where the text of the Bible has none. Do you know any resources on exegesis or hermeneutics that stress or have a section on techniques to encourage us to answer with a humble "I don't know" rather than repeating bad semantics/exegesis.

The context for the question is some works on apologetics that add "only" or "all" to many proof texts that do not actual say or imply that.

It sounds like you are looking for a philosophical rather than hermeneutical approach. If one is convinced of the perspecuity of Scripture, one needs not (and should not) interpret the Bible with a "broader (or narrower) meaning than the text actually supports." Frankly, that phrase makes my skin crawl a little. In my view the aim of interpretation should be to understand exactly what the text supports, no less nor more.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180628#Comment_1180628

Thanks DAL, but what I am looking for is not logic or semantics per se, it is humilty, self-awareness, and an awareness of the skills of the Deceiver i.e. the willingness to admit the possibility one is wrong, that the other has a point even if not completely right, the willingness to admit one does not know. This should fall in hermeneutics and exegesis in a wholistic sense but may be shoved into spiritual growth/ faith development in some traditions.

Just opining (since, obviously, I don't know), but your separating 'logic' and attitude seems odd; both apply. In the well regarded denomination I belong to (a careful way to blame the denomination, membership 1, not me), there's text, and then there's (typically) guys. The latter more often than not work in absolutes, even though none can agree and therefore their absolutes are (statistically) almost all wrong. That, however, doesn't impact on attitude, or even logic. Rather, tradition ... social logic, if you will.

But no, I've never seen a resource that even hints at the humility ... many try to use Paul's smokey glass, prior to an absolute.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

Rather, tradition ... social logic, if you will.

Indeed, Denise!

In interpreting hard passages of the Bible St. Augustine (De Doctrine Christiana) holds the regula fidei from plainer Scripture passages and the authority of the Church as the guide. (And of course, the context preceding and following the ambiguous passage). So, tradition and social logic, yes!

According to st. Augustine the fear of the Lord (Psalm 111:10) is the starting point of all exegesis. With the words of the bishop who ordained me to the clerical estate: You are being examined by the text, rather than you examining the text! Now there’s a humble attitude, if only we could hold onto it!

When studying the divine scriptures, one must remember that mere knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1).

St. Augustine explains that God allows hard passages in the Bible to crush our pride and to save our intellectual boredom. After all, if we had too easy passages, life would be too easy!

According to st. Augustine, charity, i.e. love, is the way to turn over and over in your mind what you read, until the interpretation is squeezed through to charity.

You can’t call that prideful exegesis, can you?

He says that if you claim to have understood the Bible and if your interpretation doesn’t build up love for God and neighbor, then you truly haven’t understood.

And he even admits that if you haven’t said what the original author meant but you build up love, then your mistake is not a disaster and you cannot be accused of lying!

You can’t call that prideful exegesis, can you? Now I wonder who exegete or hermeneuticist nowadays would say that..? [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180634#Comment_1180634

Coming to modern times, Friedrich Schleiermacher’s hermeneutical circle? Hans Georg Gadamer’s fusion of the two horizons (past and present) in interpreting texts? Kevin Vanhoozer has “a hermeneutics of humility” that I’m not that much acquainted with. Maybe worth checking out?

Sensus plenior as taught by Raymond E. Brown?

Thank you ... i've not read Vanhoozer at all, the others I will rethink in terms of my questions. Unfortunately, the apologetics/polemics I'm trying to counter is all quite modern and ahistoric although they would not describe themselves as such.

If one is convinced of the perspecuity of Scripture, one needs not (and should not) interpret the Bible with a "broader (or narrower) meaning than the text actually supports." Frankly, that phrase makes my skin crawl a little.

I'm glad it makes your skin crawl - it bugs me because it so often is used to support false doctrines and split churches. Unfortunately in my experience, belief in the perspecuity of Scripture often reinforces the incorrect reading especially among those who forget they are reading a translation. I could tell a very funny story of my own Father reversing his opinion in his mid-nineties when new experiences made him realize that he was accidentally reading based on his own experience rather than what the text actually said. (Dad was an extremely logical son of a Church of Christ w/musical instruments preacher - great nephew to the Church of Christ preacher who founded seven congregations in south central Washington and north central Oregon - some with, some without musical instruments, among other differences.)

there's text, and then there's (typically) guys. The latter more often than not work in absolutes, even though none can agree and therefore their absolutes are (statistically) almost all wrong. That, however, doesn't impact on attitude, or even logic. Rather, tradition ... social logic, if you will.

That is my experience as well with a whole class of denominations. Their spoken word, social media word, and wirtten word come across to me as arrogance and in the two cases where I have had sufficient personal contact to judge, I have seen nothing of a glimmer of doubt that they might be incorrect ... hence, 40,000 + denominations.I love your term "social logic" -- it may turn out to be very useful.

but your separating 'logic' and attitude seems odd; both apply.

I agree but it seemed the best way to indicate to DAL that I respect Warren but he's not quite addressing the issue I'm wanting to research.

According to st. Augustine the fear of the Lord (Psalm 111:10) is the starting point of all exegesis. With the words of the bishop who ordained me to the clerical estate: You are being examined by the text, rather than you examining the text! Now there’s a humble attitude, if only we could hold onto it!

When studying the divine scriptures, one must remember that mere knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1).

St. Augustine explains that God allows hard passages in the Bible to crush our pride and to save our intellectual boredom. After all, if we had too easy passages, life would be too easy!

According to st. Augustine, charity, i.e. love, is the way to turn over and over in your mind what you read, until the interpretation is squeezed through to charity.

One of the first workflows I developed was based on thie Augustinian "method".

Thanks for all the help. I now have a sense of direction to actually start my research rather than just mulling the issue around in my own mind and collecting examples of the abuse.

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180652#Comment_1180652

Thanks for all the help. I now have a sense of direction to actually start my research rather than just mulling the issue around in my own mind and collecting examples of the abuse.

This is a complex question, MJ.

Many of us (believers, preachers, writers …) hear only what reverberates in an echo chamber that reinforces what we already believe. For those who don’t know any better, I try to ask questions that might help them see beyond their bubble. I’ve seen you do that too. For those who don’t want to know better, argue myopically, and condemn their opponents, I have little patience.

That’s why I find Scriptures like Galatians 1:8-9 so confronting. I understand the significance of the gospel, and the reason for Paul’s outrage. What I’m not so sure of is when I should take this attitude to others. To be honest, I’m not we’ve always got this right in church history, misapplying these attitudes to exclude each other (e.g. Athanasius suffering exile 5 times).

That leaves me with questions about rhetoric. In addition to collecting examples of what’s wrong, you probably want to collect examples of humility, those who live in recognition that God alone has the whole truth.

HTH

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180665#Comment_1180665

Good advice, Allen.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180652#Comment_1180652

I could tell a very funny story of my own Father reversing his opinion in his mid-nineties when new experiences made him realize that he was accidentally reading based on his own experience rather than what the text actually said.

Interestingly, I was listening to a YouTube sermon by an author who is available in the Faithlife ecosystem who tends to be "this is the only way to see this". In his sermon on Luke 20:1-8 he was mentioning the day of the week when the event happened. He claimed this section occurred on WEDNESDAY. Then he said, "If you have the ____ Study Bible (named after the preacher himself), you will need to correct the note that says it occurred on TUESDAY. [;)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180685#Comment_1180685

Thanks for the example.

Hamilton Ramos

Hi MJ:

Very interesting thread.

Having no clue about what group / theological construct you are facing, I can suggest exploring Abductive reasoning:

https://ref.ly/logosres/dctrndivpplgod?ref=Page.p+100&off=960

The partial read I did started in page 100 of:

Putman, R. R. (2020). When Doctrine Divides the People of God: An Evangelical Approach to Theological Diversity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Roughly I can see modern groups engaging in abductive reasoning, I would guess some would get lucky with the help and illumination of the Holy Spirit and put together a decent doctrinal construct.

Some others probably way out of whack when done by human wisdom, and comparing to the standards below.

My particular angle is that God's Spirit communicates to men of God clarifying details about the underlying theme of pericopes for perfecting the Bride of Christ.

What seems to be the criticism of some newer groups is that some older traditions do not read the Bible diachronically when dealing with a particular doctrine, and also leave out much, making the conclusions invalid.

Remember: the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.

A strange case comes to my mind: the parable of the wheat and the tares.

Older traditions can say all they want about parables being allegories, but in the particular case of the parable of the wheat and the tares Jesus Himself explained what it meant.

From that teaching then comes doctrine for the Church: what should we do about tares, and particularly about infiltrated tares in the Church that want to secure leadership?

We are not to harm them, etc, but I have not seen a resource in the way of "What does the Bible say about leadership", and particularly deals with the problem of infiltrated tares in leadership.

There are principles all over the Bible that can guide us about the right course of action, but most likely to develop such doctrine abductive reasoning will be needed, and better if illuminated by the Holy Spirit Himself to the developers of the construct.

The way I found the abductive reasoning info was opening some resources that I thought could be useful and ran the search:

don't WITHIN 9 words know

Bibliography:

Untitled Bibliography

Green, J. B., & Turner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Marshall, I. H., Vanhoozer, K. J., & Porter, S. E. (2004). Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Phillips, R. (2012). An essential guide to spiritual gifts. Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House.

Tozer, A. W. (1989). Faith beyond reason: Lessons on Faith from the Gospel of John. Camp Hill, PA: WingSpread.

Brueggemann, W. (1989). Finally Comes the Poet: Daring Speech for Proclamation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Rickaby, J. (1888). The First Principles of Knowledge. London: Longmans, Green & Co.

Gundry, S. N., & Meadors, G. T. (Eds.). (2009). Four views on moving beyond the Bible to theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Yong, A. (2017). The Hermeneutical Spirit: Theological Interpretation and Scriptural Imagination for the 21st Century. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

Treier, D. J. (2008). Introducing theological interpretation of Scripture: recovering a Christian practice. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Bartholomew, C. G., & Thomas, H. A. (Eds.). (2016). A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Hudson, C. D., & Woods, L. (2019). The most significant teachings in the bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Green, J. B. (2012). Practicing Theological Interpretation: Engaging Biblical Texts for Faith and Formation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Barreto, E. D. (Ed.). (2014). Reading Theologically. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Barr, J. (1983). The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: SCM Press Ltd.

Vanhoozer, K. J. (2018). TH325 Theological Interpretation of Scripture in the Church. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Fowl, S. E. (2009). Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

Nelson, R. D., Sarisky, D., & Stratis, J. (Eds.). (2015). Theological Theology: Essays in Honour of John Webster. London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; Bloomsbury.

Fee, G. D. (2001). To what end exegesis?: essays textual, exegetical, and theological. Grand Rapids, MI; Vancouver, British Columbia: W.B. Eerdmans; Regent College Pub.

Putman, R. R. (2020). When Doctrine Divides the People of God: An Evangelical Approach to Theological Diversity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Barton, S. C. (Ed.). (1999). Where shall wisdom be found?: wisdom in the Bible, the church, and the contemporary world. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Page . Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:37 AM September 28, 2021.

Hope some of the above helps. Peace and grace.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180738#Comment_1180738

I can suggest exploring Abductive reasoning

Abductive reasoning is most commonly used in science, something that many of the apologists/polemicists do not regard highly. But you are correct that inductive, deductive, abductive, and conductive reasoning all have their place.in responding to the errors. Thank you for your input.

Hamilton Ramos

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180625#Comment_1180625

Hi DAL: Thank you for sharing the resources:

1. https://www.logos.com/product/204164/logic-and-the-bible
2. https://www.logos.com/product/204174/when-is-an-example-binding
3. https://www.logos.com/product/204153/under-bondage-to-the-law-of-christ

some comments on the overview that stimulate ideas:

1 Jesus seemed to use logic / inference when explaining to the Saducees about after life, how God is God of the living and in the phrase God of ... implied that the patriarchs were alive even after death.

What is curious is that Jesus used logic to explain to special group of believers that had the true Christian Worldview wrong.

He and the patriarchs that wrote, or were part of the characters written about in the Scriptures, knew God was real, that His reality included a higher reality than ours, and that God acts as He pleases regardless of our limited reality. They knew from experience that God is real and that our contextual existence in this more limited physical and historical realm was not the all nor the absolute ultimate reality.

As I have mentioned in other thread, in apologetics, experience is a method for giving good reasons about the faith one holds, but not many have gotten into such to make it deeper and richer. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob experienced God, so did Jonathan Edwards in 1737, very credible witnesses, they cannot all be delusional.

2 About binding examples in the Bible, using logic one can reckon: if Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, His reality and presence remains the same for the chosen that have His bestowed faith, so yes, the examples hold, and Jonathan Edward's experience attests to the fact.

3 We are finite beings, living within a particular contextual reality, we are not omniscient, and probably looking through a glass dimly, so progressively refining theological constructs to make it more harmonious with the available data, is not a bad thing, but a responsible thing to do.

Some spin off ideas for further research, reflection and constructive comment. Peace and grace.

Hamilton Ramos

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180741#Comment_1180741

Thank you for your input.

You are welcome.

Thanks to you for initiating very interesting and important threads that touch on very important topics.

It would be great to have some resources that went deeper into abductive reasoning applied to theology.

Meanwhile:

https://general.ebooks.faithlife.com/product/184576/50-popular-beliefs-that-people-think-are-true

LOL.

Peace and grace.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

M.J.:s post got me thinking – as a pastor- for exegetical/hermeneutical/application steps for humility or for “I don’t know” -theology. Here are my initial steps:

Know whether: a) you know that you imagine or b) imagine that you know or c) by doxa you mean opinion or glory (both are legitimate translations of the word doxa!)
Know that a) you cannot speak of God, b) but that you must speak of God.
Know that etymologically being wise and knowing (δαήμονες, daeemones) is the equivalent of being a demon (δαίμονες, daimones) (Plato, Cratylus 398b).
Know that you cannot know totally what God knows, nor even aspire to it, even if tempted to do so (i.e. the serpent’s whisper, Genesis 3:5)
Try to know yourself (γνῶθι σεαυτόν)! a) “Perfect knowledge of oneself is perfect humility, and perfect humility is perfect wisdom, and perfect wisdom is perfect spirituality” (Luther)
Know that you don’t know yourself fully, but that you are known fully (1 Corinthians 13:12)
Know that since your knowledge is peripheral, love is of the paramount importance: “languages cease…” and ”knowledge passes away.” (1 Corinthians 13:8) – the only thing standing forever is love and charity (1 Corinthians 13)
Know whether you are being strong or daring in your exegesis/hermeneutics/application. a) Being strong implies humility and hope. b) Being daring implies pride and wishful thinking.
Know to be weak or non-frightening and non-pressing. a) “I too was pinched off from a piece of clay. Behold, no fear of me need terrify you; my pressure will not be heavy upon you.” (Elihu, Job 33: 6-7). b) “Haughty men remember that they are equal in nature to other men, yet… the pride of knowledge they do not deign even to believe that they have even their equals” (Gregory the Great).
Know that you “know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9). a) Avoid the mean and the extremes (Aristotle), unless specifically told so by the Sacred Texts. b) Don’t be ignorant of divine assistance, c) Don’t be ignorant of human weakness. d) “From this it follows that pride is a privation of divine and human knowledge, because by the negation of the two true extremes a false positive is created.” (Maximus the Confessor). e) Don’t use “all” or “any”, unless specifically told so by the compelling reason or the Sacred Scriptures. f) Rather, if you must, use instead of “any” the word “many.”
Know that apologetics includes gentleness and fear (1. Peter 3:14)
Use the way of St. Bonaventure: not speculation but devotion; not investigation or curiosity but wonder, not observation but joy, not work but piety, not knowledge but love, not understanding but humility, not endeavor but divine grace, not reflection but reflecting divine inspired wisdom.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180804#Comment_1180804

Brilliant - several good starting points to expand on ... and well rooted in history and the Bible text.

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180804#Comment_1180804

M.J.:s post got me thinking – as a pastor- for exegetical/hermeneutical/application steps for humility or for “I don’t know” -theology. Here are my initial steps:

Insightful list.

Hamilton Ramos

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180741#Comment_1180741

For those interested in researching more about Abductive reasoning, a search can be run in magazines and journals for the term:

Abduction.

It seems that social-scientific criticism has a lot to say about it.

For those that have been keeping up with journals, remember:

Hopefully tomorrow will be live.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1180903#Comment_1180903

The standard contemporary reference for abductive reasoning is by Douglas Walton. It is quite reader friendly rather than obtusely technical.