INTRODUCTION TO POST-MODERN HERMENEUTICS
[another scripture essay by textman]

1. Is a Rational & Faithful Reading of the Word Possible?
2. What Comes First: Reader Or Text?
3. On the Relativity of Interpretations
4. The Legacy of the Scribes & Pharisees
5. On the Need for Complexity
6. On Not Taking Things at Face Value
7. The Five New Testament Traditions
8. On Piously Degrading the Prophet
9. A Logos-Based Hermeneutics

&
18 Dialogues on the Essay:
Re: PoMo Hermeneutics / More Abusing the Prophets
On Getting Lost Among the Details / On Defending the Early Christian Prophets
The Cyber-Prophet Makes a Prophecy or Two! / Re: PoMo Hermeneutics 8

INTRODUCTION TO POST-MODERN HERMENEUTICS

"Brethren, do not be as children in your thinking!
Yes, be like babes in doing evil;
but in your thinking, be mature" (1Cor 14:20).

/ Forum > TheologyOnLine – Philosophy & Theology / Date > 31 Oct 2001 /

1. Is A Rational And Faithful Reading Of The Word Possible?

 In order to read the Bible well, the believer must have a good knowledge of hermeneutics; for the plain fact is that all readers interpret the text, whether they are aware of it or not. Usually this interpretation occurs ‘on the fly’ and (for the most part) unconsciously. But an undisciplined and irrational method of interpretation is obviously incapable of bringing the believer to a proper understanding of the text; for the simple reason that such ways of reading are not well grounded in the truth of things (ie. history/ reality). Respect for the Word of God demands fidelity to *ALL* truth, as well as a clear recognition of the need for a method of interpretation that places the sacred text before (and above) the Reader (and his/her assumptions and opinions as to what the text says and means).
.
 Yet for most believers interpretation routinely proceeds the other way, such that whatever the text says is made to ‘fit’ whatever specific beliefs, opinions, and theology the individual reader happens to favor. More scientific (ie. rational and disciplined) modes of interpretation, such as those used by Bible scholars, are only slightly less haphazard in their approach. Thus although basic hermeneutical principles are acknowledged by all the scribes and pharisees, and usually incorporated into a general interpretive scheme, it often happens that methodology is sacrificed to theology.
.
 Thus, for example, most Bible scholars will agree in principle with the idea that the best witness to any given time period are those documents that originated in that time frame, and that other (later) documents are necessarily of secondary value only. That seems simple enough, yet in practice Bible scholars and theologians routinely treat primary and secondary documents as if there were no real differences between them. Thus a study of Paul's epistles often involves considerable use of Lk-Acts; which is a confused mixing of first century and second century sources. But most scholars approve of such disgraceful methodology by simply denying that Lk-Acts is a second century document.
.
 In essence, their theology and/or faith prevents a clear recognition of the derivative nature of Lk-Acts, and allows them to treat Lk-Acts *AS IF* it were a primary source. Needless to say, such a procedure fairly reeks of bad faith, and clearly demonstrates that the offending scribe still prefers his theological biases over fidelity to fundamental hermeneutical principles. And since the scribes and pharisees can't be trusted to exhibit a sufficient level of respect for the Text (by way of a rigorous and consistently applied methodology), it therefore falls to the individual believer to develop his or her reading skills as much as possible.
.
 Given the current situation of hermeneutical chaos, and the almost total lack of competent guides, it is hardly surprising that so few are able to maintain a rational and faithful approach to the scriptures. One thing that may help the reader forward to a more fruitful and enlightened reading of the Word of God is to cultivate the ability to recognize shabby interpretation whenever and wherever you come across it. This takes a little effort, to be sure, but it can be done by any sensible believer who takes the Bible seriously.
.
 Now all interpretations can be judged according to one key characteristic that is basic to all hermeneutical approaches. How do we decide if any particular interpretation is good or bad? Basically it all boils down to the way that the textual evidence is handled. Simplistic, literal, and superficial approaches (such as those favored by fundies) are inadequate because they are incapable of distinguishing between the various traditions within the text. Thus, for example, the idea that the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and eternal prevents many readers from acknowledging that the texts change over time (ie. during the process of transmission and translation). Here piety and theology together conspire to deny the plain fact that additions tend to creep into the text over time.
.
 So if one cannot recognize, for example, that the beginning and ending verses of 1Peter are, in fact, late additions to the text of the original autograph, then we have no choice but to accept the literal meaning of the opening verse, and therefore conclude that the apostle Simon-Peter is the author. Now this conclusion is simple and easy for those who despise a historical-critical approach to the text; but it is also a conclusion that is entirely false, and therefore inevitably leads to a distorted understanding of the epistle as a whole, as well as the author’s intentions in writing it.
.
 Thus we see that the way in which the evidence of the text is treated is fundamental to our overall understanding and appreciation of the sacred scriptures. Those who tend to idolize the Bible are accordingly their own worst enemy; for their arrogance and vanity prevents them from clearly recognizing the text for what it is. A much better (ie. more rational AND faithful) approach is to attempt to let the text speak for itself; and this can only be done by consistently refusing to impose our own personal beliefs, opinions, and theologies upon the text. If the reader can learn to do even this much, then you have taken the first major step in breaking away from the oppressive legacy of the scribes and pharisees.

    "But woe to you experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You keep locking people out of the kingdom of heaven! For you neither enter nor permit those trying to enter to go in. Woe to you experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You cross land and sea to make one convert, and when you get one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves! Woe to you blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing. But whoever swears by the gold of the temple is bound by the oath.' Blind fools! Which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold sacred? And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing. But if anyone swears by the gift on it is bound by the oath.' You are blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple, swears by it and the one who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and the one who sits on it.
    "Woe to you experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You needed to do these without neglecting the other. Blind guides! You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel! Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside may become clean too! Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of the bones of the dead and of everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you look righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
    "Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have participated with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' By saying this you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up then the measure of your forefathers! You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? For this reason I am sending you prophets ..." --  Matthew 23:13-34 / NETbible

 The first thing to remember is that although the current generation of believers (ie. post-modern Christians) is far removed from the world of the scriptures, the events and people's witnessed to therein remain with us still. Thus the scribes and pharisees are also still with us; the only difference being that today they present themselves under their revised Christian roles and functions (ie. priests, Bible scholars, preachers, etc). This is important to know because it only emphasizes the remarkable persistence of ancient thinking and traditions, and also the always current relevance of the biblical documents (and their value to every generation of believers).
.
 Now Christians read the Bible for many and various reasons, to be sure, but it is the WAY that we read the Word of God that is the subject matter of hermeneutics. Oddly enough, the HOW of our scripture reading is at least as important as the WHY of it. For example, if we read the Bible in the same way that we read a novel or the Sunday papers, then the why of it is pretty much irrelevant since our casual attitude towards the sacred text of itself precludes any possibility of the reader doing full justice to the immense depth and richness of the Word; and therefore denies us any measure of real understanding. The proper attitude toward the Text is thus not optional, but rather essential to a faithful and rational post-modern hermeneutics. To read the Bible well (ie. with care, attention, understanding, and respect) is the goal and purpose of any disciplined and faithful approach to reading the scriptures. It is also the reason for hermeneutics in general.
.
 What, then, distinguishes post-modern hermeneutics from all the classical, traditional, and popular interpretations that have gone before and linger on still? Two things chiefly: (1) the awareness of the Reader's overwhelming egocentric dominance over the text (ie. the reader's basic attitude, disposition, presumptions, assumptions, etc). Thus the primary fact of post-modern hermeneutics is the clear recognition of the gross inadequacy of any and all views that postulate (or assume) a simplistic one-way flow of information from the text to a (more or less) blank, passive, and receptive Reader. In point of fact, however, the reader takes a very active role in the process of reading, such that there is a constant to and fro movement of meanings and values, as well as information. Indeed, the Reader creates meaning to such an extent that, in some extreme cases, the Text actually functions as a mirror bouncing the reader's assumptions, values, and conclusions back at him as if the author and reader were in absolute agreement in all particulars (an exceedingly unlikely event).
.
 In other words, the vast majority of bible-reading today is characterized by the arrogance and vanity of readers who prefer to impose themselves and their ideas into the text, rather than go to the bother of employing difficult methodologies that negate the self in order to let the text speak for itself. And yet it is a basic axiom of a rational and faithful post-modern hermeneutics that we must first silence our own voice in order to listen to the Voice of the Word.
.
 (2) The second characteristic of post-modern hermeneutics is the recognition that because no two readers read the text in exactly the same way, the result is a vast multitude of conflicting interpretations of endless passages, different emphasis' on which books and verses are the most important, different understandings of the meaning and value of even single words, and, of course, a myriad kaleidoscope of competing and conflicting theologies all making the same claim to be the only and exclusively divinely approved vision and interpretation of the Holy Bible.

P.S.  PoserOne: If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
.
P.P.S.  PoserTwo: Why is Jesus sending prophets?

3. On the Relativity of Interpretations

/ Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / Date > 21 Nov 2001 /

 Of course, there have always been competing versions of the Faith, and many and various expressions of its main features and central truths. Precisely because there have always been conflicting versions and visions of the Faith, there have always been different ways of understanding the special and inspired documents of the sacred scriptures (generally scrolls in Hebrew and/or Greek) that express and articulate the authentic and authoritative essence of the prophetic faith of the early Greek churches. The only real difference in our post-modern age is that now we just have a lot MORE choice and variety in creeds, beliefs, doctrines, and theologies; in the way we can live and practice the Faith; in translations and/or versions of the ancient texts, in the way we read and understand this new all-in-one-book thingy entitled 'The Holy Bible', and even in the very meaning and definition of who and what our Lord Jesus Christ is and was!
.
 Now this very awareness of complexity, plurality, multiplicity, and subjectivity in all aspects of our Bible-reading efforts (whether collective or singular) is taken by some to mean that all interpretations are necessarily "relative" (ie. relative to, and limited to, some given century, culture, elite, and/or individual), and therefore are all equally meaningful and true, OR equally valueless and untrue. You decide, and whatever you decide is right for you! In this way, the spiritual poverty and moral bankruptcy of the post-modern churches (and Western civilization in general) is made apparent to all.
.
 On the other hand, this new-found awareness has also allowed for the development of some new biblical sciences (4X: one recent technique focuses attention directly upon the history of the reaction to the sacred texts; ie. their impact on various peoples and cultures through the ages, and how these various visions of particular books or passages changed over the centuries) and methods of interpretation that are both interesting and fruitful, although generally more limited to specific themes or perspectives.
.
 For example, I once read a commentary on the Gospel of Mark written by a Buddhist scholar, and it was fascinating and exceptional in many ways. But the price for these recent positive developments is a corresponding demand for a much greater skill and sophistication on the part of the bible-student AND the bible-reader! One might even say that blind faith is no longer enough to carry the believer through the incredible mystery and complexity of the Word of God. Effort is just as necessary as the need for self-silencing.
.
 Alas, all of this leaves the occasional individual believer in a rather sticky wicket, because even a mere nodding acquaintance with the New Testament is quite enough to show that the zealous and passionate faith of the early generations of Christians has really very little in common with our corporate, multinational, and consumer-driven shadows of that original shining Faith that created, energized, and informed those crude Greek documents that only later came to be collected together and standardized under the boastful title of 'The New Testament'.
.
 Fortunately, there is an antidote for this confusion and complexity, and the new medicine is the same as the old medicine: read and learn, read and learn, and then read and learn some more. Knowledge of the scriptures leads to knowledge of the Lord, and this being-with the Logos brings spirit and life and faith in abundance. Amen!
.
 In any case, it seems clear that all this disorganized and untidy plurality, multiplicity, and subjectivity demand some standard of validity to act as the basis of scientific judgement and knowledgeable authority. Only in this way can a legitimate post-modern hermeneutics combine reason and faith to the benefit of both. The importance of the actual and concrete (ie. NOT idealized) history of the Faith lies close to the heart of this much-needed validity/authority by way of the fact that any sensible hermeneutics is ultimately very dependent upon the reality and truth woven (by God) throughout the fabric of space-time.

P.S. If four out of five people SUFFER from diarrhea, does that mean that one enjoys it?

4. The Legacy of the Scribes & Pharisees

/ Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / Date > 1 Dec 2001 /

 In any event, the long and error-laden legacy of the new-age scribes and pharisees has left post-modern Believers with the two dominant hermeneutical paradigms of the early 21st century. They both function as a kind of interpretive grid (for the reader) that filters the text of discordant elements, provides a well-ordered arrangement and presentation of the many and various parts of the Holy Bible, and in a sense imposes order (and meaning) to the reader's perceptions of the text so as to make the Word of God more easily digestible, more controllable, generally more simple to understand; which is to say, much more acceptable to the discriminating peculiarities of the post-modern mind. These interpretive grids are both subtle and obvious, being built into the warp and woof of modern printed bibles in various ways: translation, footnotes, introductory essays, maps, verse numbering, cross referencing, and all the other little extras placed into the Book in order to make the Word more reader-friendly.
.
 The first model is the old reliable traditional approach found among the majority of popular churches in North America (and elsewhere). These adopt an attitude of absolute ownership over the sacred scriptures which allows them to more easily bend the Word to their own particular wants and needs. They use the scriptures in a highly controlled manner for different purposes: liturgy, devotional practices, pious study, teaching (and even various forms of scholarship), and so forth. All of these various readings and practices function to embed the scriptures within the vast superstructure of the Christian religion such that the entire weight of twenty centuries of Christian traditions must appear to rest upon the authority and dignity of the Holy Book.
.
 But in so making the Bible a pliant and uncomplaining servant, the churches have also handed down to us a very tame and docile Word (ie. a Word very different from the Word of Fire that burned the ears and tongues of the prophets of old). For these mainstream believers the scriptures can offer no offense, nor hold any surprises, for all that can be known about the Bible is already well-known; and so now it's all just a matter of convincing "those other churches" of the sad errors of their misguided theologies (for the scriptures are ever in the service of their theologies, doctrines, and beliefs).
.
 The second model (or hermeneutical paradigm) also starts from a stance of ownership over the Text (implying a master-slave relationship with the Word of God playing the part of the strong and silent slave), but in light of the current plurality and multiplicity of Christian practices and theologies, these tend to take a more limited and neutral approach to the Bible as a whole, while intensely exploiting certain particular passages, themes, techniques, and so forth. In other words, all the basic attitudes and assumptions of the latest crop of proactive interpreters are basically still the same as those of everyone else (ie. those hermeneutical traditions stemming ultimately from the Christian scribes and pharisees). The only significant difference between the older and newer interpretive schemes is that the newer readings of scripture build smaller and more modest ideological superstructures upon the same old servile and beaten shoulders of the Word of God.
.
 Thus the legacy of the Christian scribes and pharisees is such that it puts most bible-readers into a fixed one-way relationship with the Sacred Text; one that is characterized by an almost absolute dependence upon external authorities and experts, such that eventually a great many things stand firmly between the eyes of the Reader and the raw printed words on the page just below them: READER (Believer) -> (authorities can include things like) catechisms, icons, dogmas and doctrines, approved or recognized classics of Christian literature (4x: the Confessions of Augustine), various saints, teachers, and heroes of Faith, certain historical documents and declarations expressing cardinal principles and beliefs (after twenty centuries there are a great many of these to choose from), and even seemingly trivial things like a preferred version or translation, etc etc etc -> TEXT (Bible).
.
 Now it may seem incredible or impossible to the average post-modern believer, but the plain fact is that while this huge cloud of authorities provides some measure of order and regularity to our various readings of the Word, it also (and at the very same time) distorts and conceals many aspects of the Text that might otherwise be visible and plain for all to see.
.
 If the Reader has followed me this far, it might seem impossible to avoid the conclusion that most Bible-readers are constantly (although largely unintentionally) engaging in many and various (mostly unconscious) abuses of the Word, even while faithfully and lovingly reading and praying the text! And this is indeed the sad hermeneutical dilemma that faces every believer each and every time he or she turns to the Word of God. This is the true legacy of the scribes and pharisees. It is a long and twisted legacy of almost sadistic dominance over the text. It is a legacy that has installed arrogance and vanity as the "normal" and standard way of reading the Word. It is a legacy that offers only lies, fabrications, and illusions as eternally authoritative and valid answers and explanations for every question or mystery within the sacred scriptures; for it would hurt them to admit that what they don't know about the Bible far exceeds what they do know!
.
 It is a legacy that has also left the believer with the baggage of uncertainty and skepticism; and entirely reliant either upon the scribes and pharisees themselves, or upon whatever meager resources the individual Reader can manage to muster. It is a legacy that has pulled the wool over our collective eyes, and kept it there! Under such conditions it is hardly surprising to see the current situation of biblical studies in general as a chaotic and discordant symphony of blindness, stupidity, and vanity. The spiritual poverty of the post-modern churches surely rests squarely on the fact of their collective disrespect for the Sacred Text that they piously use and abuse (and *still* manage to neglect) at every turn.

5. On the Need for Complexity

/ Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / Date > 8 Dec 2001 /

 And what, you may well ask, is the solution to this pervasive, yet nebulous, hermeneutical dilemma? Is there a way through this crooked maze of discordant authorities and self-serving theologies? Well, of course you know what the most popular answer is, don't you, dear reader? Oh yes. Make it simple! Just make the Bible easy to read and understand, and the people will come a runnin! Many people seem to think that all of this variety and plurality and multiplicity of ideas and practices is nothing more than a mass of confusion best ignored in favor of the easy assurances of *my* faith and traditions (whatever these may happen to be). The common thread in all this reactionary conservatism is that the people want their Bible to be a simple and docile animal. A warm and fuzzy creature. A cute, lovable, loyal, and very servile creature. Yes. They certainly don't want the scriptures transformed into some dangerous snarling beast. Oh no, not that! And yet the plain fact remains that the Bible, like the universe in general, is anything but simple to read and easy to understand. Anything but cute and soothing!
.
 Indeed, even a casual glance through the mountains of biblical secondary literature will amply demonstrate that (far from being simple and homogenous throughout) there is complexity everywhere, and at many different levels. The Bible, it seems, is a fearfully complex library of ancient books,  poems, songs, stories, letters, myths, legends, histories, dreams, hopes, laments, etc etc, spanning many centuries, and written by many different peoples from various cultures and languages. To expect such a rich library of ancient documents to be simple and easy to read flatly contradicts the most basic assumptions of the biblical sciences.
.
 Clearly, complexity is an elemental aspect of the Word of God; and we would be very foolish indeed to deny it or ignore it. But if you, as faithful Bible readers, are willing to love and respect the Word enough to acknowledge and accept its deep mystery and rich complexity, its imperfect (and even flawed) aspects (along with its sublime power and glory), its snarling beastyness (as well as its docile passiveness), then you are already miles ahead of the scribes and pharisees. And if you can approach the text with the proper attitudes (eg. humility, gratitude, etc), and are willing to truly listen to every word and phrase and image, then (and only then) will you be in a position fit to drink deep of the cool spiritual waters of the Word of God. But even then (alas) breaking free altogether of the ludicrous legacy remains a far more problematic proposal.
.
 Thus there is indeed a way out of the current hermeneutical chaos and confusion. But it requires a lot of effort and practice and determination to daily learn from the Lord. Reading the Bible well is never easy because the scriptures are always complex, and always offer copious information at various levels of fact and meaning. Sorting through the tangled mess of fact and fancy challenges not just our faith, but our minds and hearts as well.

 The good Bible reader must therefore always be the careful Bible reader. And the careful Bible reader must always be wary and watchful; taking nothing for granted, and questioning everything. For example, one question that should always be softly itching at the back of your mind whenever reading the New Testament is this: Is this passage, or verse, or word, a true and faithful rendition of the author's intentions as they are expressed in the original Greek texts? One should never automatically assume that the answer is 'yes'; for all current English translations are deliberately designed to be as inoffensive as possible to the delicate sensibilities of easily offended (but bible-buying) post-modern Christians, such that accuracy in translation often takes a back seat to theological biases and political correctness.
.
 4X: In many bibles the word 'slave' is rejected in favor of 'servant' or 'bondservant' or some such idiotic nonsense; words that are in no way equivalent to the *Christian* meaning of the word 'slave' (cf. James 1:1a; Jude 1:1a; 2Peter 1:1a). Sadly, the reason why there are so many grossly inadequate translations today is that the bible-makers are far more interested in selling bibles than in actually producing accurate renditions of the Greek texts. Of course, one would never suspect this was the case from reading the self-praising introductions to these supposedly superior modern translations.
.
 Because of these deliberate distortions of the Word (so typical of the scribes and pharisees), a primary guiding principle of any sound and sensible post-modern hermeneutics is that the Reader should never take anything at face value. And it is almost easy to demonstrate the necessity and value of this hermeneutical tactic. There are many examples from the scriptures that I could use to illustrate, but few could be as weighty as the opening verse of First Peter: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1P.1:1a). In some ways, these six words are the most important verse in the entire epistle; at least in terms of coming to an adequately reality-based understanding of the letter in general; and its historical and theological relationships to the other early Christian documents in particular.
.
  So who wrote the famous and esteemed epistle called 'The First Letter of Peter'? Seems a no brainer, eh? But wait a minute, dear reader. What did I just say about easy answers and taking nothing at face value? If we wish to know who authored this epistle, we cannot simply stop at the title and first verse (neither of which formed any part of the original autograph of this late first-century letter), and consider the question answered; rather, it behooves us to first examine *ALL* the relevant evidence (about its author) that the epistle provides. That is, the letter as a whole offers various clues and pointers about the author, and about how the letter came to be (ie. its social and historical context). One must thereafter consider also the evidence of other New Testament documents that may have a direct bearing on any pertinent questions about this letter (4X: the Thessalonian letters).
.
 Besides the letter's close relationship to particular documents [4X: 1P.2:4-8 corrects the rather obvious theological errors of Mt.16:18], one must also take into account the transmission history of the text; by which I mean the long journey of the text through the ages from the original inspired autograph direct from the author's hand to the mass-produced, modern, black and white pages of our fancy post-modern English versions. Now that is a long and fascinating journey, to be sure, and it has a vital significance to all questions of authorship.
.
 So if we assume (safely, I think) that First Peter originated in the area of Asia Minor, sometime in the years between 75-85 of the first century CE, then we can cobble together a rough sketch of the early history of the text, and how it came to be included within the growing collection of early Christian literature that attached itself to the core collection of early Pauline epistles. In short, it was the uninspired addition of the opening and closing verses (foreign encrustations) that caused the letter to gain its current title, and thereby assure it a place in the canon.
.
 Let the reader understand that this epistle entered the NT not on the strength of its own intrinsic merits, but chiefly because it was known (erroneously) to be a document from the hand of the first apostle. Such were the priorities of the early Christian scribes and pharisees. The really disconcerting aspect of all this is that little has changed in the intervening centuries. Christians even now would much rather believe that Peter is the author, simply because ANY alternative is entirely unacceptable! The love of truth, it seems, forms no part of our faith whenever it conflicts in any way with our pious idolization of the scriptures and the early heroes of the Faith. More than anything else, it is this conspicuous lack of love for the truth that forces us to question everything, and take nothing at face value.

- one who looks behind the words - textman ;>

7. The Five New Testament Traditions

/ Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / Date > 18 Dec 2001 /

 In the decades following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, there were four main traditions of Faith in four major areas around the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea:
.
 (1) The Petrine tradition: in the area between Asia Minor and Palestine, centered in the cosmopolitan city of Antioch, and around the apostle Simon-Peter (who died, it is generally assumed, some few years before the Fall of Jerusalem). This area was the birthplace of the gospels of Mark (c.68CE) and Matthew (c.80-85CE).
.
 (2) The Pauline tradition: in the area around the Aegean Sea, centered in Corinth and Ephesus (and other major cities). This region was the adopted home and mission-field of the pharisee-prophet Paulos of Damascus, and the birthplace of his influential letters, as well as the later documents written under his name (eg. Eph & Col). Thus we see already that we must be very careful about assigning authorship to any document, as there was very early on a strong tendency to attribute authorship to someone other than the actual writer (as was the custom in those days). This area was the birthplace of the following books: 1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Philippians, Galatians, 1&2 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, and Revelation (via Patmos).
.
 (3) The Johannine tradition: in the area of northern Egypt, centered on the major city of Alexandria. This area was the home of the early Christian prophetic tradition which gave rise to documents such as the misnamed "epistle" called Hebrews, the Gospel of John, 1,2,&3John, James (and 1Clement), Jude, and 2Peter (the last NT document to be written, c.140CE).
.
 (4) The Roman tradition: the Latin church of Italy centered in Rome. Major documents from this region include Luke-Acts (c.115CE) and other early second century documents (eg. the so-called pastoral epistles 1&2Timothy, and Titus).
.
 So it is upon these four pillars that the New Testament was built, and it is to one or another of these tradition-streams that every NT document (but one) belongs. The sole exception is First Peter, which while clearly related to both the Petrine and Pauline traditions, is actually an independent offshoot tradition stemming directly from the author and his local churches (in NE Asia Minor). The significance of these five tradition-streams for better understanding the meaning of, and interrelationships between, the NT documents can hardly be overstated.

- one who arranges the NT into five regions - textman ;>

P.S. "It is held that drink and petting are the gateways to joy, so people get drunk quickly and try not to notice how much their partners disgust them" (B.Russell, The Conquest of Happiness).

8. On Piously Degrading the Prophet

/ Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / Date > 23 Dec 2001 /

 So if 1Peter was written by Peter himself, or a close disciple of his (as many scholars today propose; in an effort to surmount the plain fact that 1Peter was written well after Peter's demise), then we should expect strong links to, and parallels with, the authentic petrine tradition as it was originally expressed in the first gospel (ie. the gospel of Mark and Peter). Yet when we examine the epistle carefully, it is the similarities to the pauline tradition that stand fourth most clearly (ie. especially with the Thessalonians letters; which is precisely what we should expect if the author is who we say he is).
.
 But historically, it is highly unlikely that Peter would be so "pauline" in his thinking and theology, and so this counts as evidence against Peter (or the petrine tradition) as the author. So perhaps the epistle was written in (and first circulated through) the no-man's land between Antioch and the Aegean; and as its popularity grew, it spread into the region's of the pauline and petrine churches where it was gradually accepted as an authoritative and inspired document. Later on, some bumbling scribe in Antioch noticed that the letter did not begin with a statement of the author's identity, and so he gave it one; and what better choice than the first among the apostles?
.
 In this way he insured the universal acceptance of the letter by all the churches. Furthermore, it was his uninspired and deceptive addition to the text that later (3C) gave the letter its canonical title of 'The First Letter of Peter'. Here we see that the mature believer must make a clear distinction between the original inspired autograph, and all the later additions and mutations that fell upon the text (at the hands of pious, but ignorant, scribes and pharisees) in the course of its transmission from region to region, from copy to copy, and from generation to generation.
.
 That the New Testament documents underwent many editorial changes (both large and small, fortunate and unfortunate) is a fact of history that no believer can afford to dismiss or ignore. In the beginning this epistle did not carry the canonical title it now bears, and did not begin with the clumsy and ill-fitting 'Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ'.
.
 So if we now wish to know who is, in fact and in truth, the actual author of 1Peter, we have only to examine the evidence of the text. In particular, the closing verses of the letter are especially relevant to this question. This is where the author clearly identifies himself, by name, as the author: "By Silvanus, a faithful brother (as I regard him), I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it" (1P.5:12). Please note also that the original autograph ends here with the word 'it'. The additional verses 13 and 14 are classic examples of the self-serving editorial practices of the Romish scribes and pharisees. [See Hebrews 13:22 for a similar transmission related encrustation.]
.
 Now its true that the *seemingly* awkward use of the two I's in this verse is taken (thanks to the encrustations) by most scholars as clear evidence of a direct reference to Peter. But this clever self-reference is actually nothing more than a simple rhetorical device deliberately intended to distinguish the writer from the prideful and aggressive signatures of Paulos of Damascus (which, by the way, served as the model for the scribe's ignorant addition at the start of the letter). But the mere fact that this closing signature verse contains only *one* name (the name of the writer) argues rather strongly against Peter (or anyone else) as a possible contributing author. If someone other than Silvanus (please note: not Silas) was involved in the actual composition of the letter, here is the place to mention it. So what are we to make of a letter with two signature verses? Most peculiar, I should think. Clearly, one of them was not a part of the original autograph.  I trust that the reader will make the right choice, and not be swayed by silly suggestions that Silvanus was Peter's secretary, or some such nonsense like that.
.
 It's true that there are some few scholars who do, in fact, recognize Silvanus as the author, but most merely regard him as an associate or companion or messenger, or even (surely the ultimate insult) a scribe. In other words, the prevailing view is that this shining knight of the faith is clearly a person of no consequence, and of very minor significance, and best dispensed with PDQ. Praise Peter, Silvanus is a scribe! And that's the way it is with these Pious Peter Pushers.
.
 Poor Silvanus! Look what has become of this co-creator of the Christian epistle. This long dedicated prophet of Christ who went toe to toe with Paulos, and then went back to Asia Minor to spread the gospel without the "generous assistance" of those vain pillars Peter and Paul. Does anybody ever think of Silvanus when they make up their little lists of apostles? Hell no! And yet his contribution to the New Testament (and to the Faith in general) is easily the equal of Paul's; or even Peter's, for that matter.
.
 But I mention all of this chiefly as an example of a rational post-modern hermeneutics, and in order to illustrate the innate complexity of the Word; as well as to demonstrate the necessity of not taking anything for granted. For the true believer who wants to put aside childish attitudes and easy answers, the need to question everything remains paramount. No authority has *all* the answers because our collective ignorance about the sacred texts still exceeds by far our meager knowledge of the Word. There is a whole world of truth still lurking and forgotten in those ancient texts. Indeed, a whole truck-load of secrets still waiting to be discovered. But if you're not willing to think for yourself, to dig for those hidden nuggets, to work for every scrap and minuscule bit of insight and understanding, then you might as well just bend over right now and present thyself to the tender mercies our many *many* cheerful and smiling post-modern scribes and pharisees!

- the one always searching for nuggets - textman ;>

9. A Logos-Based Hermeneutics

/ Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / Date > 1 Jan 2002 /

 So then there are various basic elements built into a rational and faithful post-modern hermeneutics. Not least of these is the need to make distinctions at various levels within the text (eg. identifying the earlier and later layers or traditions within a given passage), and also not to confuse biblical teaching and theology with current Christian beliefs (4X: that the text doesn't change over time), and doctrines (4X: the absolute inerrancy of the scriptures), and many assumptions that are taken for granted as established (and even divinely ordained), but yet have no expression in scripture (4X: that the Bible we hold in our hands was more or less finished and complete by 100AD at the very latest please).
.
 Another difficult distinction that must be made relates to the difference between the narrative history (what the text says happened) and the underlying historical context of the document (which may or may not agree as to the historical details). This latter is a part of the larger historical process encompassing the entire race and planet; and it is this sub-textual history that provides the meanings and values that the narrative history refers to (and constantly assumes). Needless to say, it is this sub-textual history that joins to the larger historical realities that lead directly to the present (and to all of us). Historical realities, in other words, must always take priority over the narrative history as regards a critical interpretation of the text.
.
 There is a vital difference between, say the story of the early history of the Faith as presented in the two part Christian history called Luke-Acts, and the actual course of historical events in the first century. Thus a constant attentiveness to the fluid and finite nature of the scriptures is the best antidote to the juvenile preconceptions and theologies of the scribes and pharisees (and their equally childish spawn of ignorance, those pious and passionate Bible-idolizers). "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" does not mean that we are free to project divine attributes and qualities into the Good Book.
.
 All of the biblical documents, from the least to the greatest, although inspired, are very much the products of human energies, passions, and imagination; and they are as intertwined within the fabric of historical processes as any other material entity. Love of the Logos of God demands much of every believer, including an unswerving dedication to the truth of things. Post-modern hermeneutics must therefore be itself an authoritative guide, and it can only do so validly if its methodology remains unswervingly reality-based, truth-based, and history-based.
.
 Given the complexity and multiplicity of the post-modern world, and the post-modern scriptures, the search for an adequate Christian hermeneutics demands at the very least a methodology that derives its validity from an aggressively rational and critical approach to the Sacred Text. In practice this means, 4X, that the evidence of the texts is primary, and a logical analysis of the primary facts must always supersede all traditions and theologies of a contradictory nature.
.
 What all of the other old and new varieties of interpretation have in common is an almost complete absence of passion, and a chronic case of constipation of the imagination. These two qualities are so strong in Christian thought owing to the lingering dominance of the scribes and pharisees (a part of their legacy, as it were), but also to the innate conservatism of human nature in general (as well as the persistence of stupidity in particular).
.
 All of these things are contrary to the truth, and so must be overcome or abandoned by any hermeneutical methodology that proceeds primarily from the evidence provided within the sacred texts, while remaining firmly anchored in reality, truth, and history. The dearth of adequate commentaries on so many of the biblical books and documents shows just how difficult it is to make all of these necessary distinctions while maintaining all of the required attitudes and dispositions demanded of the reader. Faith and reason must both have a share in any Christian reading of the Word; but if these are not kept in perfect balance, and constrained by our hermeneutical first principles, all manner of foreign influences will eventually contaminate our reading, and ultimately impede the believers quest for truth.
.
 As you can plainly see, our collective efforts at reading the Bible well is by no means a simple and straightforward affair that leads to the instant recognition of all revealed truth. Yet how many believers know that, for themselves at least, reading the Bible is easy? Yes. That's how strong are the chains that imprison us in one tiny (but solid) hermeneutical box or another. But post-modern hermeneutics acknowledges that reading the Bible well demands constant effort and discipline, as well as a determination to see past the easy answers and comforting illusions offered to the pomo-Bible-reader through the sad legacy of the scribes and pharisees.
.
 So the bad news for today's Bible-readers is that the hermeneutical legacy of dominance, ownership, and arrogance has put all believers under the power of the scribes and pharisees such that a truly faithful and rational approach to the scriptures is everywhere hampered and diverted and rendered null and void by the very faith and piety that should sustain a Logos-centered hermeneutics, but instead rejects all new ideas outright (simply because they just don't fit easily into the grand superstructure of ideologies imposed upon the texts) with, dare I say, extreme prejudice.
.
 Thus the main problem in post-modern hermeneutics is not that the average believer is incapable of comprehending the awesome depth and complexity of the Word of God, but rather that the pomo Bible-reader is his own worst enemy; owing to innate ideas, attitudes, and convictions that pretty much rule out any possibility of a valid and rational approach to the scriptures. That's the bad news. On the other hand, the good news is that the Good News of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus is still as potent and as approachable as it ever was.