Hermeneutics, Language, and History
Hermeneutics is not an exclusive discipline of biblical studies. As Moisés Silva explains, hermeneutics has traditionally referred to “the discipline that deals with principles of interpretation.”[1] Humans interpret a variety of things all the time, e.g., conversations, newspapers, books, food recipes, etc. However, as Silva elaborates, there is nothing simple about this “daily practice of interpretation” because it “requires a fairly complex (though usually unconscious) process that focuses on language and history.”[2]
In Chapters 1-7, Kaiser and Silva help readers to slow down, identify, notice, and observe the principles of interpretation that are the basis of the responsible discipline of biblical hermeneutics. Much like the hidden yet intricate gears that consistently and reliably tick and tock behind the faceplate of a pocket-watch, likewise the daily “tick, tock” practice of interpretation is largely a matter of an unconscious (hidden) process. Following this pocket-watch analogy, Kaiser and Silva are lifting the backplate and showing off the “language” and “history” that are the primary elements of the gearwork that provides the tick-tock of “grammatico-historical exegesis.”[3] This book is a helpful examination of the crucial and introductory concepts for interpreting the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
Hermeneutics: Constructive and Complex
Biblical hermeneutics is a constructive endeavor which aims to demonstrate meaning and modern application of the Scriptures. How should one interpret Scripture? What can readers do to understand the original, intended meaning of Scripture? Is the canonical context important for understanding and interpreting Scripture? What should contemporary readers do to avoid making inappropriate modern applications? Hermeneutics deals with these sorts of questions. Hermeneutics must be constructive because nobody discerns, understands, explains the original meaning, and applies the Scriptures to contemporary milieu via rote repetition of the Scriptures. For example, if I ask what the meaning of the Ten Commandments is and its relevant application for modern church and society, then it is not merely a matter of reading and woodenly paraphrasing Exodus 20. That manner of “interpreting” the Bible is only a tautology. Merely saying something with different words is not the aim of biblical hermeneutics. In the chapter discussing the use and abuse of language, Silva specifically warns against the danger of exaggerating the biblical languages: “we must not confuse the divine message itself with the human means God used to proclaim it. … Under inspiration, they used their daily language in a normal way.”[4] Biblical interpretation is not merely a matter of pointing to Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek sentences, i.e., the human means God used for divine revelation.
A responsible interpreter of the Scriptures must start with and focus on the text(s) of Scripture, but the principles of interpretation extend beyond that initial step. One of the most essential yet primitive steps is to “infer from the context what an author meant,” which will then prompt other necessary decisions, e.g., determining “whether the words are to be understood literally or figuratively.”[5] It is important for readers to notice Kaiser and Silva’s repeated emphasis on the complex and constructive undertakings in biblical hermeneutics, e.g., the fivefold-summary “guidelines” in Chapter 3,[6] the anecdotal step by step “process of principlization” (showing how “to summarize the heart of the text in ways that legitimately extend into our contemporary culture the truths and principles found in the text”),[7] and the relation of faith and history.[8]
Summary
The following quote is a helpful takeaway for interpreting the Bible in accordance with the initial directions and principles of grammatico-historical exegesis presented in this book: “The word “grammatical” referred not to the grammar and syntax of the passage but to the natural, normal, or literal meaning of the text. The word “historical” referred to the incidents attached to its story or message, namely, the events of the past, its persons, and its setting.”[9] In the search for biblical meaning, Kaiser and Silva remind their readers that an interpreter must plumb the mutual fathoms of both the language and history of the Scriptures.[10]
[1] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, rev. and exp. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 17.
[2] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 19.
[3] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 21.
[4] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 55.
[5] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 39.
[6] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 64-65.
[7] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 92.
[8] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 111-112.
[9] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 119.
[10] “The term exegesis (used often by biblical scholars but seldom by specialists in other fields) is a fancy way of referring to interpretation. It implies that the explanation of the text has involved careful, detailed analysis. The description grammatico-historical indicates, of course, that this analysis must pay attention both to the language in which the original text was written and to the specific cultural context that gave rise to the text” (Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 21).