This, the third installment in my response to a former student, turns attention to a few considerations to keep in mind to guard against mishandling Scripture given its anthology status and the history of its formation. It may not be correct to describe these “considerations” as “principles,” because one might construe the term as a depiction of biblical interpretation as a methodical, even mechanical, procedure. Interpreting the Bible well requires wisdom beyond the mere application of rules. Still, certain reminders can provide guardrails against what is sometimes called eisegesis, the act of reading into Scripture one’s own preferences rather than reading out of Scripture the message it intends to convey.

The first among these axioms involves the importance of the plain meaning of the text in its original language. Of course, not all readers of the Bible have facility with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The very fact that most readers of the Bible rely on translations suggests a number of cautions. No translation of any piece of literature,
including the Bible, from one language to another perfectly and fully captures
the intention, the subtleties, and the art of the original. Consequently, one’s choice of translation represents the first important decision one makes as a student of the Bible.

Some translations (KJV, RSV and NRSV, for example) employ the so-called ‘formal correspondence’ approach in which the translator attempts to represent each element in the original with a corresponding element in the translation.  A simple example is the translation of the German sentence “Das ist eine Katze” into English as “That is a cat.”  The prominent alternative, the ‘dynamic equivalency’ approach, seeks to render whole units of speech into the receptor language such that it preserves the ‘gist’ of meaning but, usually, in a more colloquial form.  A major weakness of the ‘dynamic equivalency’ approach involves the tendency to translate, not just from one language to another, but from one worldview and cultural background to another.

Paraphrases also enjoy some popularity because of their readability.  They are, however, paraphrases, not translations at all. Readers should not rely upon them as sources for theology or ethics, faith or practice.

The term plain meaning of the text should not be confused with the dangerous term literal meaning. Surely responsible interpretation begins with the “plain sense,” but some passages of scripture are “plainly” hyperbole, parable, allegory, fiction, even satire or sarcasm. Furthermore, those who insist on interpreting the Bible literally often exercise a degree of inconsistency in the effort that reveals theological biases. Interpreters must guard against selectively emphasizing certain biblical texts, for example.  They must also always keep in mind their human propensity to employ subjective criteria. Typical examples of this interpretive inconsistency include treatments of texts in the Hebrew Bible that deal with eating pork and of New Testament texts that deal with women in authority. If one wishes to say that the Bible means what it says, but then entirely disregards explicit prohibitions, it requires one to explain how any portion of the Bible could have become entirely invalid. In other words, it requires one to admit that at least portions of the Bible must be interpreted and it requires a coherent and transparent hermeneutical approach.  If one wishes to base one’s stance against women in ministry on 1 Tim 2:13, consistency demands that one also take a stance against women wearing “braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire” (1 Tim 2:9).  Otherwise, one engages in special pleading.