2008-09-05, 23:41
#1
Exempel på mer eller mindre enfaldiga bibeltolkningar stöter man ständigt på.
Det rör sig vanligen om någon som hittar några lösryckta citat, i översättning, och i lycklig okunnighet om allt vad exegetiska handböcker heter.
Ser man till hur Kyrkan historiskt nyttjat bibeltexterna så ser man ganska lätt att den tidiga kyrkan knappast läste Bibeln, eller snarare, de texter som senare sammanstäldes till det som vi nu kallar Bibeln.
En läsning av de apostoliska fäderna rekommenderas för dem som tvivlar på detta.
Redan Origenes (ca.185–ca.254) ägande sig åt en textkritisk metod.
Den textkritiska metoden som han använde i Hexapla var att jämföra texen i sex olika versioner för att på så sätt få en bättre förståelse av den.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapla
Man kan säga att tolkningsvägarna fördjupades, och den fyrfaldiga tolkningsmetoden, bokstavlig, typologisk, tropologisk och anagogisk, som utvecklades under medeltiden gav möjligheter till en flerdiminsionell textuppfattning.
Protestantismen har i bland misskrediterats för att ha använt sig av en alltför naiv tolkning på grund av en allt för långtgående användning av principen sola scriptura.
Detta kan säkert vara riktigt om man ser till några av den lutherska ortodoxins företrädare under 1600-talet som till exempel Abraham Calovius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Calovius
Men ser man till 1800-talets förmodligen mest inflytelserikaste protestantiske teolog, Schleiermacher, så framträder en betydligt mera nyanserad tolkningsmetod.
Mot bakgrund av detta, hur relevant är det egentligen att diskutera något lösrykt citat, utan att bekymra sig om grundtextens betydelse, utan att se till texten sammanhang, eller dess stilart och trolig funktion, eller att bekymra sig om när, och i vilket sammanhang texten tillkom?
Det rör sig vanligen om någon som hittar några lösryckta citat, i översättning, och i lycklig okunnighet om allt vad exegetiska handböcker heter.
Ser man till hur Kyrkan historiskt nyttjat bibeltexterna så ser man ganska lätt att den tidiga kyrkan knappast läste Bibeln, eller snarare, de texter som senare sammanstäldes till det som vi nu kallar Bibeln.
En läsning av de apostoliska fäderna rekommenderas för dem som tvivlar på detta.
Redan Origenes (ca.185–ca.254) ägande sig åt en textkritisk metod.
Citat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen
He was, indeed, a rigid adherent of the Bible, making no statement without adducing some Scriptural basis. To him the Bible was divinely inspired, as was proved both by the fulfilment of prophecy and by the immediate impression which the Scriptures made on those who read them. Since the divine Logos spoke in the Scriptures, they were an organic whole and on every occasion he combatted the Gnostic tenet of the inferiority of the Old Testament.
In his exegesis, Origen sought to discover the deeper meaning implied in the Scriptures. One of his chief methods was the translation of proper names, which enabled him, like Philo, to find a deep meaning even in every event of history (see hermeneutics), but at the same time he insisted on an exact grammatical interpretation of the text as the basis of all exegesis.
In his exegesis, Origen sought to discover the deeper meaning implied in the Scriptures. One of his chief methods was the translation of proper names, which enabled him, like Philo, to find a deep meaning even in every event of history (see hermeneutics), but at the same time he insisted on an exact grammatical interpretation of the text as the basis of all exegesis.
Den textkritiska metoden som han använde i Hexapla var att jämföra texen i sex olika versioner för att på så sätt få en bättre förståelse av den.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapla
Man kan säga att tolkningsvägarna fördjupades, och den fyrfaldiga tolkningsmetoden, bokstavlig, typologisk, tropologisk och anagogisk, som utvecklades under medeltiden gav möjligheter till en flerdiminsionell textuppfattning.
Citat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegor...he_Middle_Ages
There were four categories of allegory used in the Middle Ages, which had originated with the Bible commentators of the early Christian era. The first is simply the literal interpretation of the events of the story for historical purposes with no underlying meaning. The second is called typological, which is connecting the events of the Old Testament with the New Testament; in particular drawing allegorical connections between the events of Christ's life with the stories of the Old Testament. The third is moral (or tropological), which is how one should act in the present, the "moral of the story". The fourth type of allegory is anagogical, dealing with the spiritual or mystical as it relates to future events of Christian history, heaven, hell, the last judgment; it deals with prophecies.
Thus the four types of allegory deal with past events (literal), the connection of past events with the present (typology), present events (moral), and the future (anagogical).
Thus the four types of allegory deal with past events (literal), the connection of past events with the present (typology), present events (moral), and the future (anagogical).
Protestantismen har i bland misskrediterats för att ha använt sig av en alltför naiv tolkning på grund av en allt för långtgående användning av principen sola scriptura.
Detta kan säkert vara riktigt om man ser till några av den lutherska ortodoxins företrädare under 1600-talet som till exempel Abraham Calovius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Calovius
Men ser man till 1800-talets förmodligen mest inflytelserikaste protestantiske teolog, Schleiermacher, så framträder en betydligt mera nyanserad tolkningsmetod.
Citat:
Givetvis har den heurmenetiska tolkningsmetoden av de bibliska texterna vidareutvecklats.
Schleiermacher's work has had a profound impact upon the philosophical field of Hermeneutics. His influence on the philosophical hermeneutics rests on the way in which he generalized hermeneutics. For Schleiermacher, sacred scripture was a special case of the more general problem of interpretation. The task of hermeneutics, then, was to avoid misunderstanding and to discover the author's intent. While Schleiermacher did not publish extensively on hermeneutics during his lifetime, he lectured widely on the field. His published and unpublished writings on hermeneutics were collected together after his death, albeit with some disagreement over ordering and placement of individual texts and lecture notes.
Citat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics
1. Lexical-syntactical method: This method looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text.
2. Historical/cultural method: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
3. Contextual method: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
4. Theological method: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn't make a theology. This is because Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poorer interpretation.
5. Special literary methods: There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning.
2. Historical/cultural method: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
3. Contextual method: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
4. Theological method: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn't make a theology. This is because Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poorer interpretation.
5. Special literary methods: There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning.
Mot bakgrund av detta, hur relevant är det egentligen att diskutera något lösrykt citat, utan att bekymra sig om grundtextens betydelse, utan att se till texten sammanhang, eller dess stilart och trolig funktion, eller att bekymra sig om när, och i vilket sammanhang texten tillkom?