John Goldingay Hermeneutics

971 Words4 Pages
To interpret a biblical text accurately is a great concern and challenge for discovering the meaning of a difficult biblical case or an ancient text which is inaccessible to a Christian interpreter who plans to obtain a correct interpretation written in an ancient literary convention of ancient authors and with an ancient language like Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. As a result, hermeneutics is considered so important that it has become one of the major courses studied in a seminary. Basically, the study of hermeneutic is a means to obtain a meaning from biblical text that helps our best to use our historical-grammatical and exegetical skills to interpret a biblical passage as accurate as possible. There are some factors which are necessarily…show more content…
Most theologians may not agree with what Karl has said and prefer to follow certain reliable guidelines for how to interpret a biblical passage. For example, John Goldingay differentiates four major kinds of approaches according to the arrangement of the scripture, i.e. narrative, torah, prophecy and experienced revelation, for interpreting the bible . These four models signify to what Goldingay’s intention in the issue of how he would interpret the Scripture. Robert Morgan would recommend other varieties, i.e. linguistic, historical literary and social-scientific. For a matter of fact, any methods used by an interpreter are usually ‘appropriate to the material under consideration and can be trusted to yield its true meaning’ . However, for an interpretative piece of work must be clear and must express precisely . This is a necessity because of organising and corresponding to the ‘texts under consideration and to the aims of the interpreters’…show more content…
As a result, principles and methods become necessities for the purpose of narrowing down and avoiding mistakes made in the process of the interpretation. Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard continue that the objective of the interpreters are ‘to distinguish the principles’ for understanding language communication ‘and procedures that are necessary to accurately discern that meaning . From Blomberg, Thiselton and Barton, there is no correct method for the reading of the biblical text. For example, Blomberg expresses that his criticism of structuralism is ‘inherently bound up with dialectic philosophy, determinism and atheism’ , while some theological scholars may choose to sweepingly general in scope. No interpreter is able to give a closer perfect interpretation of a biblical text, if no strict principles or no appropriate guidelines are applied. Contextualising of a text is required as readers of a community may come with different traditions, expectations and thinking etc. Whatever views that have been contributed, the ultimately aim of any methods is to bring out the actual meaning of the biblical text concerned. Walter Brueggemann highlights that the interpreter must seek to interpret with an obedient attitude. This is the practise of the western church as they ‘see how the Bible authorises, evokes, and permits a world that is an alternative to
Open Document