Today's Hearty Bowl of Soup

It's time to fill in the blanks.

Some Thoughts on Biblical Hermeneutics:

I've been doing a good bit of thinking recently about how we approach and interpret the scriptures when forming and shaping our world views. In other words, what methodology do we use when interpreting scripture? My thinking has generally been centered around when to take things literally and when to take them figuratively. One of my professors takes the view that one should always take the literal view unless it does not make sense, at which point we should look for other possibilities such as metaphor or symbolistic devises. The claim is that this is a more conservative approach that will prevent one from falling into a Marcionite over-metaphorization of the text. I feel that this approach is just as dangerous, however. For instance, whose authority are we appealing to when deciding if something "makes sense?" Of course, if I am an Armenian, I'm going to read Ephesians 1 under the guise of some metaphorical interpretation, because predestination as it would be understood literally, "doesn't make sense" to me. This is an unjust use of the text: our method of interpretation must by all accounts force us to deal with the text in the fullest extent of its meaning while at the same time aiding in our understanding where possible. But foremost it must not read our meaning into the text (even to preserve a literal interpretation). I turn now to an example that may be more appropriate to my aims. James 4:2, which goes something like this, "You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask," came up in class the other day. The professor (and coincidently the text we have been assigned for class) are committed to holding that there were actually people in the church that James was writing to that were purposely, directly killing people as a result of covetousness, despite the fact that context, language, and even intertextuality would say otherwise. In context with the surrounding verses, as well as the broader context of James, we find that James is expanding on and in some cases paraphrasing Jesus' words during the sermon on the mount, which in turn is an expansion of the Mosaic Law (particularly the ten commandments--Ex 20). As such, it seems right to understand the context here to be similar, that harboring anger against a brother is tantamount to murdering him in your heart, as well as committing oppression against him. In addition to this, we see in chapters 2 and 5 the use of the same term for murder, and particularly in chapter 5, we see the that the context is much less likely to be an open faced and purposed murder and much more likely to be an ongoing oppression which at the most produced actual physical murder indirectly, and much more likely has in mind Christ's sermon on the mount. Add to this the fact that, for the most part, the literal-unless-nonsensical approach rarely takes more than a perfunctory study of the original languages into account except in some rare cases, and you get a method of interpretation that does no justice to language, genre, context, or even intertextuality. Once the jump is made that those other things are more important in interpretation, and not our own biases of sensibility, it frees us up to use what is perhaps the most important orthodox Christian / Protestant view of scriptural interpretation: scriptura scripturae interpres, or, "scripture interprets scripture." In other words, the Bible itself, and nothing else, is seen as the main mode of interpretation. This is especially important when it comes to difficult sections, and especially those tied in heavily with genre which needs to be factored in. Revelation, Daniel, and pretty much any apocalyptic work fit as a good set of examples of things which should be seen through the framework of their genre and context. At the same time, works which fit into the historical narrative category, such as Samuel/Kings should be read as such. It all comes down to context, genre, and the like.


Other stuff on my mind:
Not much to say really. I'm starting to really be done with school as a whole. I know I cannot be until I get my two papers done, but I really have very little motivation. And the weather outside is wonderful now as well!

We read Nietzsche for class this week, which reminded me of something I already knew. I really enjoy reading Nietzsche. I don't agree with him at all, but I certainly enjoy him. He's an incredibly gifted writer. And to be honest, he brings up some really important points that Christians need to deal with.

Why isn't there as much outcry against this "operation" in Libya as there was against the Iraq war? I mean, I know that there's plenty of time for us to get stuck there and for people to realize it was a stupid idea, but really.... if we're going to make a fuss over Iraq, please to all goodness let us be consistent! And what happened to Pres. Obama's moving our military out of other countries thing (you know, that single idea that got him elected)?* That was literally the one thing about this president I actually agreed with, and now he's gone and turned his back on that as well. Oh well...politicians, I guess.

I'm working on a metaphysic which would hopefully go back to Greek philosophy for its inspiration of forms, but at the same time go beyond them by springing from a theocentric model, as opposed to working (from pure metaphysics) towards theocentrism. The hope would be for it to be eminently practical while yet achieving a balance between Plato and Aristotle...which I will be the first to admit may be an impossible task, but still one worth trying! If it works, Descartes and onward would be able to be reinterpreted through this particular lens. I'm still in the beginning stages, though I may perhaps post something when I get a more concrete set of premises down (I'm still attempting to validate them, but it's difficult because of how many things need to be thought of when validating cosmic metaphysical premises).

Starting today, I am planning on getting up an extra bit early at least twice a week so that I can get a little piano practice in. Brahms and Debussy have been calling me, and I find I really miss it. I'm also getting disgustingly rusty...


* Generally speaking, what I remember of his campaign, he had two main points: 1. I will get us out of other countries and this stupid policing the world business, and, 2. I'm not Bush. And those two points were enough to win him the election. He of course had subpoints, such as 2.1: "healthcare, regardless of whether or not people want it the way I want them to want it."... but generally speaking, points 1-2 pretty much sum it up.

Well, that's all for now, while you contemplate the Two Rules...