How to Read the Bible / Part One
[Or: The Interpretive Triangle (Revised)]

/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 18 Sept 2000 /
.
 In order for any Bible student to embark on any goodly study of the sacred texts, certain truths must first be known and accepted, and certain conditions must obtain (lest our study prove fruitless and in vain). Of the latter conditions, a humble and contrite heart, and a prayerful attitude of thanksgiving are absolutely essential. Of the things necessary to know, are certain matters regarding the mere act of reading the Text. Thus the process of reading the Word of God is by no means a static and simple thing. Rather, it is a dynamic dance and interplay of three spiritual forces: (1) the Reader (who is the vortex of the storm, as it were), (2) the Sacred Text (which is the physical/symbolic conduit of the Logos), (3) and the Spirit of Truth (who is the divine Encourager at work in both the Reader and the Text).
.
 From all this, we know that in order to read and study and know and love the Word of God, it is not enough simply to be a Christian. One must also have the right attitudes, affections, and dispositions toward the Good Book. One must also be very well aware that the sheer complexity, mystery, and power of the Reader/Text dynamic means that the Reader can never ever exhaust the Book of Books, or know all that can be known of it (so as to claim any sort of mastery or expertise or authority over the Text). If ever the Reader should imagine that the meaning and message of the Bible is *absolutely* clear and unambiguous in *all* its details, then (at that very moment) the Reader has cut himself off from the Text by building an unbreachable wall of vanity and arrogance between the Reader (all-knowing and all-supreme over the Text) and the Spirit of Truth (who whispers so softly that She cannot be heard over the chaotic noises of a Reader more interested in the Reader then in the Text)!
.
 Certain maxims to guide the Bible student can now be set forth:
  (1) To read the text is to interpret the text.
  (2) To interpret the text is to put into the text as much as the Reader takes out of it.
  (3) Garbage in, garbage out.
.
 Now this third reality (for the sincere Bible student) is by far the most important to constantly bear in mind while reading any text. It simply means that false dispositions and false assumptions can very easily lead the Reader astray, so as to miss the truth (in all its diversity and fullness), even as the Reader congratulates himself on the great progress he has made! Reading the Word of Life is not a game, nor a pious act of faith and devotion, nor a means of spiritual advancement, nor a riddle to be solved. Nothing so destroys any possibility of real understanding than to come at the Text (attack it, really) fully equipped and armed with the 'tried, tested, and true' "Traditions" (be they ever so comfy and authoritative), or with the supreme assurance that the Reader can do no wrong, or with the copious insights and commentaries of the various scribes, scholars, and exegetes.
.
 All such "methods" of Bible study inevitably remove from the Reader that basic respect for the Sacred Text that is the very foundation upon which all effective and productive study of the Word proceeds ...

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 17 Sept 1999 /
.
 Dear cyber-saints, there are many and various ways to read and study the scriptures. There are good ways that lead the faithful to knowledge and wisdom, and bring much grace, peace, and all the fruits of the spirit ... And there are bad ways that bring only perplexity and confusion, and lead to a distorted religion and a false understanding of the Faith. 4X: Those who read the book of Luke-Acts as they read their weekly journals and daily newspapers do a great violence to the Word, and show themselves to the Lord as foolish Readers unworthy of the sacred text ... Wise indeed is the true believer that treats the Word of God with reason, humility, and respect; for unto them the favor of the Lord does shine.
.
 On the other hand, an unrelentingly literal interpretation of the scriptures (ie. what I call reading the Word through the eyes of a child) is grossly inadequate to the complex and diverse nature of the sacred documents; and indeed is suitable only to 'babes in Christ' and those incapable of being anything other than Very Silly Readers. These also reveal themselves unto the Lord as unworthy Readers.
.
 So in light of all the available possibilities, stumbling-blocks, and pitfalls to a right perception of the Logos, it is only fitting that all Believers exercise some goodly caution and forethought in their reading of the New Testament. One popular approach that merits some attention and promotion is what is called, by conservative evangelicals, the book-method of Bible study:
.
  The logical method for the mastery of these epistles is the book method of study. They were separately produced as independent works and they should be studied as distinct units of Christian thought and teaching. The most rewarding method is to concentrate upon one at a time until its contents are thoroughly mastered. ... Read the epistle *straight through* at one sitting. It is important to read the whole book at one time to get a clear impression of it as a whole. Disregard chapter and verse divisions; they are very convenient, man-made devices for reference, but they may hinder the apprehension of the author's trend of thought. Read it straight through in an endeavor to follow the writer's general development of his message. Do not stop to puzzle over passages that may appear dim to you. The purpose is not to catch the details but to grasp the central line of thought. Now read it *again and yet again* ... Carefully read the epistle again with the aim of discovering in it all available information concerning the setting and historical background of the epistle. Gather all the material you can find in it concerning the author, the readers, as well as the place, occasion, and purpose of its composition. To be most profitable, have by your side different sheets of paper, each sheet labeled "Author," "Readers," "Purpose," et cetera, and record the information you find on the proper sheet with the scriptural references. This is important, for a letter, especially, cannot be fully understood without acquaintance with these matters of introduction. [D.E.Hiebert, An Introduction To The New Testament: Volume Three - The Non-Pauline Epistles And Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1981, P.26-28]
.
 So this is a very good and proper way for bible-students to approach their reading of the various biblical books ... *In general!* ... The problem with this method is that it does not work all the time. For example, the books of Luke and Acts should never be treated separately; for they are actually one book in two parts (and must therefore always be read and studied as a single unit). In the same way, the pauline epistles in their canonical format are a nightmare of editorial confusion and chaos; and must therefore be handled with very great care, and close attention to the transmission history of the various pauline texts. Thus First & Second Thessalonians must always be read together; but only after we have teased them apart into the original four letters by Paulos and Silvanus.
.
 Thus it is apparent that the Book-Method of Bible-Study is often inadequate to the needs of the People of God, and I would propose instead the 'family-method' of bible-study. It is based on a more sensible arrangement of the various NT books according to groupings of documents relating to their "literary-family" (which is to say, their textual kin) as per author, historical period, tradition, etc.
.
 Now this approach to the sacred texts has many advantages for the diligent Reader who applies this method with zestful persistence and consistency. So if we wish to proceed in this manner, we must first rightly divide the scriptures in such a way that will bring maximum benefits to the faithful Reader thirsty for a word of grace and truth and blessing. For your edification the cyber-prophet offers the following seven-fold scheme based upon a long and careful study of canonical history, and the always exciting history of the early Greek churches ...
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
   Group One - The Letters of Paulos of Damascus: The Persecution Tradition (Paulos and Silvanus):
/ 1&2 Thessalonians (ie. the four letters A, B, C, D) / Miscellaneous Letters: Philippians; Philemon; 1&2 Corinthians / The Great Epistles: Galatians & Romans / 1Peter (by Silvanus) /
.
   Group Two - The Good News of the Anointed One: The Gospel of Mark & Peter / The Gospel of Matthew
.
   Group Three - The Post-Pauline Epistles: Ephesians & Colossians / 1&2 Timothy; Titus
.
   Group Four - The Apostle Called John: 1John & Gospel of John / 2&3 John
.
   Group Five - The Prophet Of Patmos: The Apocalypse (or Revelation) of John
.
   Group Six - A History Of The Faith From Jerusalem To Rome: The Gospel of Luke & Acts of Apostles
.
   Group Seven - The Prophets Of Egypt: Hebrews / James & 1Clement / Jude & 2Clement; 2Peter /
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
 Now the Reader should know that although this arrangement is basically chronological (in that it follows the basic contours of the history of the early Greek churches), it is not strictly based on the supposed dates of the documents. Thus, 4X, Hebrews and Revelation were very probably written before group four, and some of the group three works after group six. Although this chronological confusion may disorient some readers, this should not be over-emphasized. The precise chronology of all these books remains uncertain and hotly contested among the scribes and Bible scholars. Nevertheless, the overall design follows the general history of the documents (4X: 1&2Thes are the earliest documents; 2Peter is the latest); ie. inasmuch as the general thematic and geographic matrix allows.
.
 Another thing readers may notice is that the cyber-prophet's edited and user-friendly New Testament contains 29 books; as opposed to the more traditional 27 (as per the much-adoed canonical format). Now these two extra books (ie. 1&2 Clement) should not be thought of as canonical as such, but rather as necessary apocryphal enhancements. That is, they are authoritative (in the sense of being inspired works), but they are not *as* inspired and authoritative as the others (ie. as being the Word of God as such). Nevertheless, it would be a serious error on the bible-student's part to neglect these books if attempting to come to terms with the prophets Jacob and Judas (or group six as a whole).
.
 Another matter (for those who wisely elect to approach the New Testament according to this scheme) to bear in mind while handling the sacred text is the question of the relative authority of the various books. Now it's true that many feel that all 27 of the canonical books are equally authoritative because they are all equally canonical and/or inspired (and thus all equally the Word of God), but in practice this ideal is rarely adhered to with any real consistency. Thus many routinely prize the gospels above all other books; and others often suppose that Romans is the "best" of all the pauline and post-pauline epistles.
.
 Personally, I do not think that the matter of authority should be left to the whims of the individual Reader. Instead, most true believers would do well to consider the gospel of Peter and Mark, along with the authentic pauline letters (ie. group one), to be of primary value and authority among all of the sacred scriptures. In many ways, the Apostle and the First Gospel (ie. canonical Mark) are the essential core documents that constitute the solid foundation for everything that follows. They are the core "canon-within-the-canon". In other words, all of the other canonical, apocryphal, deutero-canonical, and post-canonical documents (4X: the Apologists and Church Fathers) must always be set and seen in relation to the original and apostolic testimonies of Mark and Paul.
.
 In the same way, the New Testament as a whole (including my two additions), along with the books of the Greek Tanakh (LXX: Old Testament and intertestamental literature), all together constitute the whole of the sacred scriptures of the People of God that are the Word of God to us, and our measure and standard of all right religion ... the living and dynamic expression of Christian Faith for which we owe the Lord endless praise and much thanksgiving!

/ Forum > TheologyOnline > BATTLE TALK / 27 Sept 2002 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics /
.
> On 26Sept02 sarah073076 of texas wrote: Why is it that there are so many versions of the bible?
> I mean the stuff started way before I was born and now it seems that it is going to continue for my
> child and that scares me. Truely does, it is like we don't even give God a chance to speak in our lives
> without have a bunch of bs shoved down our throat. Don't get me wrong I do believe in God but for
> the most part religions only confuse me. I do believe that He will always let me know through a simple
> thought or a person that he is there. love your self and love your neighbor. -- sarah hansen
.
 textman replies: Hi sarah. The only practical solution to your problem is for you to abandon your fear (for it is entirely groundless), and to then learn to love the incredible richness, diversity, depth, and (above all) complexity of the Word of God. After all, if the Faith is both rational and irrational at the same time, both simple and confusing at the same time, how can the bible (and the rest of creation too) be otherwise?
.
 And do not be so hard on the translators and bible-makers; for they are trying with all their very-meager might to get it right. This despite being severely handicapped by two major impediments: (1) they have a great deal to learn about the early texts and their collective history; ie. they are very extremely ignorant SOB's! And (2) they are unable to get over the absurdly ridiculous notion that the canonical format (which ALL translations *MUST* adhere to) is itself somehow divine and inspired and not to be trifled with under any circumstances!!!
.
 Therefore readers of the bible (like you and me) are made into the slaves of these corrupt and ignorant Christian Scribes & Pharisees, and thus willfully deprived of any opportunity to read and experience the Word as the earliest Greek-speaking believers did (ie. with their hearts as well as with their heads).

P.S. "Men who love wisdom must inquire into very many things." - Heraclitus (ancient Greek philosopher)

/ Forum > Yahoo! Groups > Christianity_Debate / Topic > The Bible / Date > 14 Nov 2009 / Topic > 

] Badger Ravenmoon wrote: ... Mark's came first, circa 55 C.E., then came Luke, Matthew and
] John, in approximately 64, 72 and 90 C.E. respectively. Again, this is from memory and I might
] be off on the dates, but I am fairly certain on the sequence.
.
wurm say: Actually, you are wrong on both the dates and the sequence. The NT writings were composed over a span of about a century, approximately from 50 to 150 CE, starting with the letters of Paul. The Gospel of Mark was written (most probably by Mark and Peter in collaboration) as a direct response to the ever increasing popularity of Paul's epistles. This was round about year 70, followed by Matthew's revision about a decade later, followed by John's even more radical revision (from Egypt) 10-15 years later. Luke's book in two parts (Luke-Acts) is the last in the series, and was composed in Rome in the early part of the second century. There is, of course, plenty of evidence to support this sequence and dating. For example, Luke contains citations from all the other three previous gospels. Also, Luke himself tells us as much at the beginning of his book:
.
"In as much as *many* have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the *Word*, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated *everything* carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order" (Lk 1:1-3).
.
Yes, it never fails to amuse me when believers, in drawing up their fanciful and flattering chronologies of the NT writings, ignore, disregard, or otherwise explain away the historical and textual evidence, as well as the plain testimony of the divinely inspired authors (except insofar as such evidence seems to support their own views). It's as if these wonderously intelligent bible-scholars, nineteen centuries after the fact, know better than the author of Lk-Acts when that book was written. If you take the NT seriously, I fail to see how one can so easily dismiss the relevant texts. The obvious conclusion is that bible-scholars "know" that Luke is "wrong", and verses 1-3 are therefore to be understood as simply a fancy rhetorical introduction to his book, and obviously NOT to be taken seriously. In the same way, Christians love to compress the century of composition into the second half of the first century under the dubious assumption that the idea of any NT writings being written in the second century is clearly and obviously a gross insult unto the Lord. All I can say about all that is: Good Grief!

/ Topic > The Necessary Convergence of Exegesis & NT History / Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / Date > 22 Dec 2001 /
.
> On 21Dec01 Jaltus wrote: FF Bruce is no exegete, but he is considered (world-wide)
> to be one of the greatest NT historians of the last century.
.
 textman replies: This is an interesting statement in so many ways. One of the most significant aspects is the seeming assumption that there is a clear distinction to be made between bible commentators, biblical historians, and biblical theologians. Oh yes, they are specialized fields of study, each with its own mountains of specialized literature; but this fragmentation by specialization is also what cripples the efforts of the biblical sciences as a whole, and leads to a situation where the consensus is all but entirely paralyzed and unable to move in any direction at all. Hence friend Jaltus' apparent reliance on the great FF ...
.
 So how can anyone be a great NT historian and NOT be an exegete? To me the separation of NT history and NT commentary is utter madness, and about as irrational and illogical as one could ever hope to get. How can bible-students even imagine that anything substantial could ever emerge from methods and techniques that proceed along such narrow and one-way tracks?! Such sources can only be used with the utmost caution; and I would recommend avoiding them altogether (if at all possible).
.
> Perhaps you think people bang their heads against the wall because you disagree
> with the ones who are right?
.
 It's just a figure of speech, Jaltus; I certainly didn't mean to imply that they literally banged their heads against the walls! ... LOL ... And in any case, your conviction about "the ones who are right" is something I have been mercifully spared for some years now. Actually, I've been trying to convince the cyber-saints that 'the ones who are right' are none other than the early Christian prophets themselves. But I guess you and the great FF know better than that, right Jaltus?
.
> As to the 2 names you think I listed, I figured you would at least know a little history.
.
 Yes, a little.
.
> All Roman names have 3 parts to them. Given, middle, and familial. Thus, 4 names when you
> add in his Hebrew name. Of course, you would actually have to read someone reputable to
> know that, but you obviously do not.
.
 Oh obviously. And I can't help but notice that you once again failed to provide the requested information. And therefore I must once again wonder if indeed there is such information. It seems a simple question after all: If Paulos had four names, what are they? If you can't tell us exactly what these names are, and show us where you got them (ie. the source of the evidence), then this entire situation raises *MANY* problems that can hardly be so easily brushed aside ...
.
> Did you really read Bruce?
.
 Not everything, of course, but I sampled quite a few of his more popular books over the years; although not lately, to be sure.
.
> It is laid out there nice and plainly for all to see.
.
 I hope you don't expect me to go chasing after the great FF? HA! That'll be the day.
.
> I have no idea what your background is,
.
 Please continue to bear this in mind, and reflect well upon its significance . . .
.
> but you sound like a prophet who wants his revelation from God, and thus reads nothing else.
.
 This is an unwarranted conclusion on your part. In fact, I read many things, and all kinds of literature; (eg. I just recently finished one of Saberhagen's Berserker books). And as a slave of the Word I am well aware that God's revelation is by no means limited to the accepted books of the "forever closed" canon. Indeed, it is this gross belief that the Word of God can *only* be found in the Bible that causes so many ridiculous problems for the bible-worshippers and bible-idolizers and other fools who do not even know that which they read (and therefore think they know well).

P.S.  In 'Fundamentalism and the Word of God' author J.I.Packer distills into a few words the essence of that lust for simplicity that powers much of today's popular bibliolatry: "To assert biblical inerrancy and infallibility is just to confess faith in the divine origin of the Bible and the truthfulness and trustworthiness of God" (p.96). Although many believers think that this is true, or would like it to be true, it is, sadly, not so. I know this because we can very easily confess faith in the divine origins of the sacred scriptures, as well as in the truthfulness and trustworthiness of God, while at the same time we do declare that biblical inerrancy and infallibility is a dangerous and foolish idol. Because of this, it is logical to conclude that these two affirmations are NOT equivalent and mutually supportive. In other words, one cannot equate the idolization of scripture with faith in God. The latter is central to our salvation and destiny, but the former is not. Our attitude toward, and knowledge of, scripture are *very* important to the quality of our faith and discipleship, to be sure; but ultimately it is our relationship with the Lord Jesus that defines us as believers, NOT the measure of our love and devotion for the Bible. God cannot be contained in *any* finite object; and neither can the Word of God! Believers would do well to understand and acknowledge the truth of all this.
.
P.P.S. "One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike.
Each must be fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5 / NETbible).

"No one likes bad news, no one welcomes what
condemns him; the world slanders the Truth in
self-defence, because the Truth denounces the world."
-- JHNewman, "The Salvation of the Hearer the Motive of the Preacher", 1849

textman
*