The Literary Context

[Willie T]

I recently made a fairly bold statement that I thought a certain book was so important that I felt people should read that book before they began to seriously (and studiously) read the Bible, itself. We hear a lot about "reading in context", but it occurred to me that some people may not really know all that entails.

There are different kinds of "context", but here is probably the most obvious. (This is taken from that book.)

The Literary Context

This is what most people mean when they talk about reading something in its context. Indeed, this is the crucial task in exegesis, and fortunately it is something one can do well without necessarily having to consult the “experts.” Essentially, literary context means that words only have meaning in sentences, and for the most part, biblical sentences only have meaning in relation to preceding and succeeding sentences.

The most important contextual question you will ever ask, and it must be asked over and over of every sentence and every paragraph is, “What’s the point?” We must try to trace the author’s train of thought. What is the author saying and why does he or she say it right here? Having made that point, what is he or she saying next, and why?

This question will vary from genre to genre, but it is always the crucial question. The goal of exegesis, you remember, is to find out what the original author intended. To do this task well, it is imperative that one use a translation that recognizes poetry and paragraphs. One of the major causes of inadequate exegesis by readers of the King James Version, and to a lesser degree of the New American Standard, is that every verse has been printed as a paragraph. Such an arrangement tends to obscure the author’s own logic. Above all else, therefore, one must learn to recognize units of thought, whether they be paragraphs (for prose) or lines and sections (for poetry). And, with the aid of an adequate translation, this is something the reader can do.

 

[Willie T]

The Questions of Content
The second major category of questions one asks of any text has to do with the author’s actual content. “Content” has to do with the meanings of words, the grammatical relationships in sentences, and the choice of the original text where the manuscripts have variant readings. It also includes a number of the items mentioned above under “historical context,” for example, the meaning of denarius, or a Sabbath day’s journey, or “high places,” etc.

For the most part, these are the questions of meaning that one ordinarily asks of the biblical text. When Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:16, “Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer” (NASB), one should want to know, Who is “according to the flesh,” Christ or the one knowing him? It makes a considerable difference in meaning to learn that “we” know Christ no longer “from a worldly point of view” is what Paul intends, not that we know Christ no longer “in His earthly life.”

To answer these kinds of questions one will ordinarily need to seek outside help. Again, the quality of one’s answers to such questions will usually depend on the quality of the sources one uses. This is the place where you will finally want to consult a good exegetical commentary. But please note that consulting a commentary, as essential as that will be at times, is the last thing one does.

 

[bbyrd009]

But please note that consulting a commentary, as essential as that will be at times, is the last thing one does.

wow, is it? i was not aware of this, i had thought the opposite. Guess i'll have to ask around! i've pretty much rejected most approved commentaries at this point, bc what point in reading a commentary of the wise, but at one time i lived in them more or less

 

[Willie T]

wow, is it? i was not aware of this, i had thought the opposite. Guess i'll have to ask around! i've pretty much rejected most approved commentaries at this point, bc what point in reading a commentary of the wise, but at one time i lived in them more or less

I think their reasoning is that when any of us read a commentary, we are getting one man's personal slant on things. And if that commentary is the first thing we consult, there is a strong likelihood that we will quickly become biased in favor of the commentator's POV.

 

[APAK]

The Questions of Content
The second major category of questions one asks of any text has to do with the author’s actual content. “Content” has to do with the meanings of words, the grammatical relationships in sentences, and the choice of the original text where the manuscripts have variant readings. It also includes a number of the items mentioned above under “historical context,” for example, the meaning of denarius, or a Sabbath day’s journey, or “high places,” etc.

For the most part, these are the questions of meaning that one ordinarily asks of the biblical text. When Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:16, “Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer” (NASB), one should want to know, Who is “according to the flesh,” Christ or the one knowing him? It makes a considerable difference in meaning to learn that “we” know Christ no longer “from a worldly point of view” is what Paul intends, not that we know Christ no longer “in His earthly life.”

To answer these kinds of questions one will ordinarily need to seek outside help. Again, the quality of one’s answers to such questions will usually depend on the quality of the sources one uses. This is the place where you will finally want to consult a good exegetical commentary. But please note that consulting a commentary, as essential as that will be at times, is the last thing one does.

This is a very important topic Willie, that most folks blow off, completely!

Most on any Forum or even in personal discussion just want to get their cherry-picked verses ‘out there,’ in earnest, as the only basis of their core belief or truth. They mostly just look inside only one or two verses, to a common word, symbol or expression in their chosen verse(s), and they conclude to the world, see this is the truth and I just convinced you, so believe me!

They will slice and dice this word(s), or symbols they choose to study, in its native tongue, with its meaning(s) and them even throw in other places where it is found in scripture. And they believe they have done you a great service even though they have really caused chaos and nonsense.

They believe you must be convinced by now as any unbeliever in their eyes, and now you surely are converted. Sounds more like being in a cult.

What they tend to do is just reinforce their own faulty wisdom and errors and they become even more intransigent.

Yes, what is the point of the writing? What is the audience? What do other writers say on the same subject with the same or different audience etc.? What was just said before and what is said afterwards? These and many more key areas for the search of meaning in scripture are crucially ignored by these unique and special truth-tellers they we are supposed to believe in.

Again, a topic close to my heart. Thanks for bringing it up in public again.

Bless you,


APAK

 

[Willie T]

I have given the book to several people. And I hope they read — or are reading — it. If so, they will have an advantage over so many of us who decided they simply needed to do no more than just pick up the Bible and begin reading.

This book even suggests reading ANOTHER book before reading theirs.... I think it is "How to Read A Book" by Mortimer Adler. I have that book, too, but I am too lazy to go look up the exact title right now.

 

[bbyrd009]

I think their reasoning is that when any of us read a commentary, we are getting one man's personal slant on things. And if that commentary is the first thing we consult, there is a strong likelihood that we will quickly become biased in favor of the commentator's POV.

well, i gotta say that that was a problem for me too, ya. At least before i adopted the position that everything we know is wrong, which i guess sounds negative

 

[Enoch111]

At least before i adopted the position that everything we know is wrong, which i guess sounds negative

Not just negative. Cynical. When applied to the Bible.

One of the major causes of inadequate exegesis by readers of the King James Version, and to a lesser degree of the New American Standard, is that every verse has been printed as a paragraph. Such an arrangement tends to obscure the author’s own logic.

I do not believe that this is an issue, although some of the chapter divisions in the KJV should be different. However, the verse divisions are far better than one continuous mass of text (as originally written).

Most on any Forum or even in personal discussion just want to get their cherry-picked verses ‘out there,’ in earnest, as the only basis of their core belief or truth.

Well you cannot expect an entire chapter or book to be reproduced in order to make a point. Selective quotes are perfectly acceptable in any field.

 

[Willie T]

well, i gotta say that that was a problem for me too, ya. At least before i adopted the position that everything we know is wrong, which i guess sounds negative

I think you have the right attitude, but I might have expressed it differently. Like: "Everything we think we know might not all be as accurate as we sometimes swear it is."

 

[amadeus]

wow, is it? i was not aware of this, i had thought the opposite. Guess i'll have to ask around! i've pretty much rejected most approved commentaries at this point, bc what point in reading a commentary of the wise, but at one time i lived in them more or less

I have never used commentaries first. I have read the Bible and then sometimes on a particular point or verse where I have a question or a doubt I may check it against another translation and the using a lexicon. But I do have most of the popular commentaries either on my computer or in book form. They are usually more of a last resort when nothing else has made sense and I seem to need something that does... make sense that is.

 

[amadeus]

I think you have the right attitude, but I might have expressed it differently. Like: "Everything we think we know might not all be as accurate as we sometimes swear it is."

I tend to go the same way, but it was not always so. It took me years to really begin to get some understanding together concerning the scriptures as a whole. Now I am less likely to change my general outlook of God's plan with the scriptures than to change on the details of a single word or verse or chapter.