Not an exegetical question

In one thread recently, a poster commented that they would use a device for reading but not Bible study. In another thread, there was a request for more examples of the use of Logos for exegesis. Since I am interested in methodology, that lead to an interesting question with no right or wrong answer, simply personal answers:

How would you study Scripture if all that you had was Scripture (and, perhaps, your own notes and friends)?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rich DeRuiter

In one thread recently, a poster commented that they would use a device for reading but not Bible study. In another thread, there was a request for more examples of the use of Logos for exegesis. Since I am interested in methodology, that lead to an interesting question with no right or wrong answer, simply personal answers:

How would you study Scripture if all that you had was Scripture (and, perhaps, your own notes and friends)?

Really good question.

What I do, is try to remain curious: What does it actually say? Why does the author say it that way? Why are these details included, and not others? How does this fit in with what is going on around the passage I'm looking at? How does this fit with the rest of the Bible? What would we miss, if this passage were removed from Scripture? What do these various elements in the passage really mean? Is anything here meant to be taken symbolically? What is the purpose of this passage (to teach, to warn, to encourage, etc.)?

I would also ask some intentionally subjective questions, such as, what do I find interesting, curious, helpful, encouraging, disturbing, etc.

For narrative the actual questions would be different from poetry/wisdom literature, epistles, apocalyptic, etc.

Simon’s Brother

An inductive approach... ask questions of the text and make notes on my gleanings.

If the scriptures I were using had a concordance or cross-references then these would be the secondary helps after gathering my own thoughts to see if other parts of scripture match up with what I had gleaned. Of this would need to be guided by context.

Michael Anda

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301064#Comment_301064

Here are some books on the subject…

How to study

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301068#Comment_301068

Here are some books on the subject…

Thanks you. I have two of these. French appears to meet my conditions but MacArthur uses books beyond the Bible.

I thank all of you for your answers - definitely thought provoking. Live in fear of the day when I ask the same question for the majority of Christians over space and time - not owning a printed Bible (before printing, no Bible in their language, illiterate ...) where one has to rely on memorized Scripture or paraphrased memories.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301114#Comment_301114

where one has to rely on memorized Scripture or paraphrased memories.

I don't think any of us mentioned memorised scripture but that is also a useful tool in the context of your original question - even just a knowledge of say chapter x in the this book deals with the topic of y can be of great assistance - but in the scenario you just suggest our memories will require more than this, but even if our memories of specifics fade, what will never be taken away form us is God's words written on our hearts!

George Somsel

In one thread recently, a poster commented that they would use a device for reading but not Bible study. In another thread, there was a request for more examples of the use of Logos for exegesis. Since I am interested in methodology, that lead to an interesting question with no right or wrong answer, simply personal answers:

How would you study Scripture if all that you had was Scripture (and, perhaps, your own notes and friends)?

That would almost be a question of simply making it up out of your own imaginings unless you at least had the scriptures in the original, but then you would need to have a most excellent knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. I say you would need a most excellent knowledge since you aren't even allowing lexica and grammars. Even then you would be mostly just making it up without some historical and archaeological information as well as documents which elucidate the context of the writings.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301372#Comment_301372

That would almost be a question of simply making it up out of your own imaginings unless you at least had the scriptures in the original, but then you would need to have a most excellent knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. I say you would need a most excellent knowledge since you aren't even allowing lexica and grammars. Even then you would be mostly just making it up without some historical and archaeological information as well as documents which elucidate the context of the writings.

I agree this is a danger, particularly if you were to sit down and get to it with no 'training' or 'guidance from another suitable person on some sort of structure methodology, and this extra information is helpful - that's why we are all using Logos in the first place - but at same time scripture is often best interpreter of scripture along with my three friends - context, context and context.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301372#Comment_301372

That would almost be a question of simply making it up out of your own imaginings unless you at least had the scriptures in the original,

Actually, a Catholic bishop imprisoned in China went 20+ years on the Psalms he had memorized from the Breviary - a common requirement for ordination in the past. He had no access to any Christian text.

And about 10 years ago, I had an African graduate student in a Bible study class. In his homeland, there was rarely more than one Bible - and sometimes only a hand copied section of the Bible - yet they managed to have meaningful Bible study.

So I know that my conditions are realistic. However, there is a huge gap between what our "how-to books" prescribe and what is possible for a large number of Christians. I'm trying to wrap my mind around what scripture study means when stripped of its academic/library resources and is focused on the text/Christian community.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301381#Comment_301381

if you were to sit down and get to it with no 'training' or 'guidance from another suitable person on some sort of structure methodology

which is what we Catholics refer to as the magisterium, the teaching authority of the church. When you strip away the tools with which we are familiar and take for granted, all that you have is the text, prayer and your trust in your teacher.

but at same time scripture is often best interpreter of scripture along with my three friends - context, context and context.

While my "context" is probably broader than yours (think liturgical context, ecclesial context ...) I agree completely. It's hard to strip down to the absolute minimum, yet that is what many now and throughout history have had.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301389#Comment_301389

That would almost be a question of simply making it up out of your own imaginings unless you at least had the scriptures in the original,

Actually, a Catholic bishop imprisoned in China went 20+ years on the Psalms he had memorized from the Breviary - a common requirement for ordination in the past. He had no access to any Christian text.

And about 10 years ago, I had an African graduate student in a Bible study class. In his homeland, there was rarely more than one Bible - and sometimes only a hand copied section of the Bible - yet they managed to have meaningful Bible study.

So I know that my conditions are realistic. However, there is a huge gap between what our "how-to books" prescribe and what is possible for a large number of Christians. I'm trying to wrap my mind around what scripture study means when stripped of its academic/library resources and is focused on the text/Christian community.

I assume your Catholic bishop had some training prior to ordination so he was not without resources except that in this case the resources were commited to memory. Your African bible study either has some guidance from those who have had training and resources or they are simply making it up.

Josh

In one thread recently, a poster commented that they would use a device for reading but not Bible study. In another thread, there was a request for more examples of the use of Logos for exegesis. Since I am interested in methodology, that lead to an interesting question with no right or wrong answer, simply personal answers:

How would you study Scripture if all that you had was Scripture (and, perhaps, your own notes and friends)?

http://www.logos.com/product/9374/grasping-gods-word-a-hands-on-approach-to-reading-interpreting-and-applying-the-bible

[Y][Y]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301418#Comment_301418

Joshua, the forum won't let me quote just a link but:

While I like this book very much as it has some very good explanations
that stick in the student's mind, it's got one looking at outside
sources far too quickly to count as "Bible text only". But it's nice to
be reminded of this resource.

Nord Zootman

I certainly recommend the use of whatever tools and training that one can obtain, but I also instruct people that two important tools are just a pen and paper. I suggest they draw two lines down the sheet to form three columns. The first is observation (what do I see, what does it say), the second is interpretation (what does it mean), the last column is application (how do I apply this to my life). Studying texts in their context, including the context of the entire scripture, is certainly a major part of that as well.

I'm not suggesting that this simple method replaces other tools and training, but it complements them and if all one had was the scripture it would still be the structure I would suggest.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301448#Comment_301448

I certainly recommend the use of whatever tools and training that one can obtain, but I also instruct people that two important tools are just a pen and paper. I suggest they draw two lines down the sheet to form three columns. The first is observation (what do I see, what does it say), the second is interpretation (what does it mean), the last column is application (how do I apply this to my life). Studying texts in their context, including the context of the entire scripture, is certainly a major part of that as well.

I'm not suggesting that this simple method replaces other tools and training, but it complements them and if all one had was the scripture it would still be the structure I would suggest.

The problem of such an approach for the average person is that these documents were written in a different time and under different circumstances. What they might seem to mean to us may not be what they meant to those present at the time they were written. We do not even use the same language and are thus dependent upon learning the language ourselves — in which case we generally still need certain aids such as lexica and grammars — or we must rely upon the hopefully good offices of translators (with the old adage that the translator is a traitor). Even once we can read the documents in their original languages we need to have some understanding of the cultures under which they were written including the literature and folktales. Sitting down and simply spinning ideas regarding it out of our imagination is no guarantee that our ideas based on our own situation will bear any resemblance to what they meant in the beginning.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301448#Comment_301448

Thank you, Nord - that seems to be a practical approach.

I'm a little surprised that the few methods that came to my mind - Swedish method, Lemko method and lectio divina - have not been mentions, But I'm getting more interesting and useful responses than if they were.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301455#Comment_301455

The problem of such an approach for the average person is that these documents were written in a different time and under different circumstances.

I agree to a point. On the other hand, I trust God to keep the text meaningful and accessible at some level. And historically in both Judaism and Christianity this has normally meant hearing the Word read, and seeing the Word in art I'm still struggling with how to make various pieces that I believe to be true fit into a coherent whole.What I do know is that I see people (particular friends) whose Bible study spends far more time with reference works than with Scripture.That makes sense in an academic or teaching role but not in personal Bible Study IMHO (okay, omit the H)[;)]

Nord Zootman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301455#Comment_301455

George - note that I was by no means suggesting that one should not study the languages and cultural/historical setting in which scripture was written (I'm not ready to suggest I've wasted years of study). I was answering the question of what I would recommend if all one had was the Bible itself.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301466#Comment_301466

I'm a little surprised that the few methods that came to my mind - Swedish method

What Swedish method? [*-)]

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301455#Comment_301455

I certainly recommend the use of whatever tools and training that one can obtain, but I also instruct people that two important tools are just a pen and paper. I suggest they draw two lines down the sheet to form three columns. The first is observation (what do I see, what does it say), the second is interpretation (what does it mean), the last column is application (how do I apply this to my life). Studying texts in their context, including the context of the entire scripture, is certainly a major part of that as well.

I'm not suggesting that this simple method replaces other tools and training, but it complements them and if all one had was the scripture it would still be the structure I would suggest.

The problem of such an approach for the average person is that these documents were written in a different time and under different circumstances. What they might seem to mean to us may not be what they meant to those present at the time they were written. We do not even use the same language and are thus dependent upon learning the language ourselves — in which case we generally still need certain aids such as lexica and grammars — or we must rely upon the hopefully good offices of translators (with the old adage that the translator is a traitor). Even once we can read the documents in their original languages we need to have some understanding of the cultures under which they were written including the literature and folktales. Sitting down and simply spinning ideas regarding it out of our imagination is no guarantee that our ideas based on our own situation will bear any resemblance to what they meant in the beginning.

Every passage has a underlining theological principal that is not culturally bound. Such principals are timeless and relevant to both the original audience and us (the contemporary audience). The main point of basic inductive bible study is to establish what this theological principal is. To quote the resource I mentioned in an earlier post: "As God gives specific expressions to specific biblical audiences, He is also giving universal theological teachings for all of His people through the same texts."

Determining such principals does not require a scholarly commentary, Greek lexicon, or Bible dictionary. It only requires careful observation, while asking the right questions.

What did the text mean to the original audience?

What are the differences between that audience and us?

What is the common theological principal?

How should Christians today apply that theological principal in their lives?

EDIT: I should also mention this should be done with a literal translation (ESV, NASB, NKJV, etc.) that has good cross references. [;)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301473#Comment_301473

What Swedish method?

http://www.scripture-engagement.org/node/193

I have 7 variations on the theme - also known as the Vasteras method.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301485#Comment_301485

also known as the Vasteras method

That would be Västerås, the 5th largest city of Sweden, and my regional and diocesan capital for the moment. I still don't remember ever having heard or read about it before (other than seeing it mentioned in the Wiki).

And when I try to google for where it came from I end up on what looks very much like a blog of yours [:)]

(Though after switching to Swedish I did actually manage to find out who invented it and where, but not really when. Seems it's more commonly known in Sweden as "candle, arrow and question mark", which does sound extremely vaguely familiar. Possibly. (Västerås, btw, turned out to refer to the diocese, not the city. And none of all your versions seems to be the original.))

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301778#Comment_301778

And none of all your versions seems to be the original.

quite true - although the main version is close with the "share with" optional addition coming out of India. As for the when, I've seen a rather consistent early 1940's but not from any definitive source.If I weren't using lectio divina for opening a day long retreat, I'd consider a version of the Swedish method. The funniest variant I have collected is call "spaghetti junction" ... Swedish barley spaghetti in loganberry sauce?

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301801#Comment_301801

quite true - although the main version is close

The version I saw was question mark for "hard to understand", candle for "helps me understand", down arrow for "hits the/my conscience", and up arrow for "gives guidance". Though I can't be absolutely sure that's the original either.

As for the when, I've seen a rather consistent early 1940's but not from any definitive source.

Sounds about right. I just got an idea and looked the guy up in an early history of the Church of Sweden Youth. It says that it only started to spread "towards the end of the period that this book deals with". And the book deals with 1905-1945.

Swedish barley spaghetti in loganberry sauce?

??? (Are we supposed to eat that?)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301815#Comment_301815

Swedish barley spaghetti in loganberry sauce?

??? (Are we supposed to eat that?)

I figured that "spaghetti junction" required northern ingredients[;)] Did I go a bit too far north? Barley pasta and reindeer squeaky cheese? (Squeaky cheese is what I called the fresh Finnish farmers' cheese - and no I've never tasted reindeer milk).

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301827#Comment_301827

I figured that "spaghetti junction" required northern ingredients Did I go a bit too far north?

I can't remember ever seeing barley spaghetti. I certainly haven't eaten it. I also don't know that I've ever seen or eaten loganberries, and I certainly haven't eaten any sauce made from them. In fact, I had to check a dictionary to find out what it was, and I'm still not sure. Maybe they can be found in some garden catalogue somewhere, but they're definitely not common. Even blackberries are extremely rare in most of Sweden. Lingonberries, blueberries and raspberries in the wild; strawberries, raspberries, currants and gooseberries in the gardens; that would be our major berries (with a few others tossed in for variation). Though I can't imagine any kind of berries with spaghetti. Sounds awful.

and no I've never tasted reindeer milk

Nor have I.

We've gone quite a bit off topic, haven't we? [:)]

Philana Crouch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301834#Comment_301834

I think a lot can be learned from observing the text. Using resources are important...training is also valuable. The main thing seminary taught me was what types of resources are there, how do I use them, and when do I use them, and which ones to use to find specific info. But actually there is a lot of things you can find out from reading the Bible...sometimes you might need to search for information, so I would guess either an electronic Bible or a hard copy concordance would be helpful.

Example:

Suppose I was studying Luke 18:9-14 and wanted to understand about Pharisees and Tax Collectors. You actually find out a lot about both just by how they are described elsewhere in Scripture.

Or let's say you are studying 1 or 2 Timothy, since he was a leader in the church at Ephesus, reading the relevant passages in Acts as well as Paul's letter to Ephesus will give context as well.

Commentaries, Bible Dictionaries/Encyclopedias are helpful (I'm glad to have so many excellent ones in Logos) but the Bible gives a lot of context itself. The Inductive Method is a very good way to ask questions of the text.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303254#Comment_303254

Thanks Philana

Terry Cook

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301064#Comment_301064

"How would you study Scripture if all that you had was Scripture (and, perhaps, your own notes and friends)?"

Sentence diagrams

Terry Cook

sDg

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303325#Comment_303325

"How would you study Scripture if all that you had was Scripture (and, perhaps, your own notes and friends)?"

Sentence diagrams

Terry Cook

sDg

There are two factors to consider:

I don't recall who said it, but it has been stated that one should beware of the man of one book (Presumably he knows it thoroughly), yet
If all you know is scripture in a translation, you really don't know scripture since anyone who only knows a translation of a writing doesn't understand the original unless it is explained since no translation can account for all factors and, when removed from the historical context with its literary connections and customs one simply interprets it in terms of a time divorced from when it was written.

Terry Cook

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303327#Comment_303327

There are two factors to consider:

I don't recall who said it, but it has been stated that one should beware of the man of one book (Presumably he knows it thoroughly), yet

If all you know is scripture in a translation, you really don't know scripture since anyone who only knows a translation of a writing doesn't understand the original unless it is explained since no translation can account for all factors and, when removed from the historical context with its literary connections and customs one simply interprets it in terms of a time divorced from when it was written.

George:

There are two factors to consider:

I don't recall who said it, but it has been stated that one should beware of the man of one book (Presumably he knows it thoroughly), yet
If all you know is scripture in a translation, you really don't know scripture since anyone who only knows a translation of a writing doesn't understand the original unless it is explained since no translation can account for all factors and, when removed from the historical context with its literary connections and customs one simply interprets it in terms of a time divorced from when it was written.

Terry to George: Huh?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303328#Comment_303328

Terry to George: Huh?

What don't you understand?

Terry Cook

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303330#Comment_303330

Terry to George: Huh?

What don't you understand?

Everything!

How does your post relate to my post? MJ asked IF a person had only the Bible, how would that person study that resource. I answered "sentence diagrams". You quoted by answer and said........

I'm unclear how what I wrote and what you wrote are related. HELP ME :-)

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303336#Comment_303336

Terry to George: Huh?

What don't you understand?

Everything!

How does your post relate to my post? MJ asked IF a person had only the Bible, how would that person study that resource. I answered "sentence diagrams". You quoted by answer and said........

I'm unclear how what I wrote and what you wrote are related. HELP ME :-)

The answer is that one does not simply study the bible without any context. If nothing else, the student of the text needs the church (or synagogue, if Jewish) in order to understand the text. The text without a context is a pretext — it means whatever you want it to mean. You may know that text well, but that doesn't indicate that you understand it. He who does not have the church as his mother cannot have God as his father.

Terry Cook

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303339#Comment_303339

OK, I think. So, your post has nothing to do with my post!?!?!?

and

you're making a blanket statement to MJ.?.?

I think MJ was just musing "what if......." same as you and I might do: "What if I were...... handsome, rich, female, born in Canada....". It's an exercise of fun and relaxation I think.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303342#Comment_303342

OK, I think. So, your post has nothing to do with my post!?!?!?

Of course it's related to your post. Diagrams aren't going to accomplish much of anything toward discovering the meaning of the text in its context. Consider the case of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.

Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship ²⁸and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. ²⁹Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over to this chariot and join it." ³⁰So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" ³¹He replied, "How can I, unless someone guides me?"

He came to Jerusalem to worship so he wasn't entirely devoid of some knowledge yet, when asked if he understood, he indicated that he still needed a guide.

Terry Cook

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303343#Comment_303343

I see... you're just wrong on this one. Let me explain:

MJ asked, "How would you study the Bible if that's the only resource available." I said "sentence diagrams." I'd study the Bible by dissecting the sentences. I dissect the sentence and build a scaffolding. From that scaffolding I would build a "translation" and ultimately, an understanding.

I think your error is the misconception that diagramming is a pursuit devoid of context - it's not. Diagramming forces one to tackle all the grammatical issues before attempting to tackle any other feature of exegesis. In a way, diagramming is the ultimate contextual pursuit in that it adds nothing and takes nothing away from the text. It studies the text as it is. No preconceptions or false ideologies to mire the goal of building the diagram.

When I approach a chapter of the NT for diagramming I have as my ultimate goal that of understanding the text. I start at the beginning and scan for verbs. I look for a subject, for modifiers and connectives. I then begin to look for relationships. Relations between words first, then between sentences then between paragraphs. What is the refferrent of the pronoun? Is this participle adjectiva or adverbial? Is this dative noun an instrumental or a locative?

As to the answer to MJ's question I think I've given a fairly good answer with something that might be adopted by others.... if they understand diagramming properly.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303346#Comment_303346

I think your error is the misconception that diagramming is a pursuit devoid of context - it's not. Diagramming forces one to tackle all the grammatical issues before attempting to tackle any other feature of exegesis. In a way, diagramming is the ultimate contextual pursuit in that it adds nothing and takes nothing away from the text. It studies the text as it is. No preconceptions or false ideologies to mire the goal of building the diagram.

Anyone who knows me knows that I would never depreciate understanding the text according its lexical and syntactic implications. That, however, is not sufficient. The community of faith from which it stems and in which it lives must also be understood or there will be no correct understanding of the text. While the grammatical features of the text are important and must be attended to, that is not sufficient.

Terry Cook

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303351#Comment_303351

OK. your argument isn't with diagramming then its with MJ's musings... I think.

One cannot build a diagram or study the bible.... in isolation from it's setting.

You points aren't making any sense otherwise.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/303351#Comment_303351

The community of faith from which it stems and in which it lives must also be understood or there will be no correct understanding of the text.

George, You might find Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation by Matthew Levering of interest.

Thanks for your input Terry. In my own terminology I think of anything that encourages a close reading of the text to be Bible study - that thing will vary based on the interests, skills and resources of the reader.