THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD IN RECENT BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP: THEORY AND PRACTICE by Charles de Jongh Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree: Doctor Litterarum et Philosophiae Biblical Studies in the Faculty of Arts Rand Afrikaans University Promoter: Prof. J.A. Du Rand 2000 NovemberACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My special thanks to: Our Father God, who has given us the privilege of studying his Word; Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true Word; Our Holy Spirit, who empowers us to interpret the Word. Sue, my wife, for her loving encouragement and support; Michelle, my daughter, for being the blessing that she is; Jenny, my mother, for her quiet empathy and love. Professor Jan du Rand, my promoter, for his encouragement and understandings Colleagues at BTC Southern Africa, for their interest and critiques Friends, for being friends. AND to all those named and nameless people who have given me the privilege of being part of their lives, from the Christian community to the streets of inner city Johannesburg.HERMENEUTICAL METHOD IN RECENT BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP: THEORY AND PRACTICE TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Table of Contents Abstract THE SIGNIFICANCE OF 1, INTRODUCTION Ll 12 13 ‘The problem and motivation for this research ‘The purpose of this research The approach and method of this research 2. A CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CURRENT THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD. IN THE EXEGETICAL PROCESS 24 22 23 Defining terms 2.1.1 Hermeneutical method 2.1.2 Exegetical process 2.1.3 Preaching event Examining interrelationships 2.2.1 Hermeneutical method — exegetical process 2.2.2 Exegetical process ~ preaching event 2.2.3 Hermeneutical method — exegetical process ~ preaching event Considering implications 2.3.1 Considering the basic assumptions 2.3.2 Considering the possible weaknesses 2.3.3 Considering the critical question ii vi 21 2 25 28 32 32 38 43AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN PROPOSALS AS TO FACTORS, OTHER THAN HERMENEUTICAL METHOD, WHICH MAY BEAR ON THE EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT 44 3.1 Highlighting the issue 44 3.1.1 Theory and practice 44 3.1.2 Preaching and exegesis 45 3.1.3 Presuppositions and questions 46 3.2 Considering certain proposed factors 48 3.2.1 Intrapersonal factors 4a 3.2.2 Spiritual factors 56 3.2.3 Community factors 6B 3.24 Contextual factors 1 3.2.5 Methodological factors 7 3.2.6 Traditional factors 81 3.2.7 Academic factors 87 3.3. Concluding observations 90 AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD FOR BAPTIST PASTORS IN THE EXEGETICAL PROCESS IN THE PREPARATION FOR THE PREACHING EVENT 90 4.1 The structure of the research n 4.2 The background to the research 92 4.2.1 The statement of the problem, 2 42.2. The study of relevant literature % 4.3 The hypothesis for the research 94 44 The design of the research 95 44.1 The research design 98 44.2 The survey questionnaire 97 443 The survey sample 102 45 The results of the research 105 45.1 Ordering the data 106 4.5.2. Interpreting the data 112 4.5.3 Conclusions from the data 118AN ENDEAVOUR TO DEVELOP A NEW APPROACH TO HERMENEUTICAL METHOD - TOWARD A HERMENEUTIC OF RESPONSIBILITY 5 5.2 53 34 5.8 5.6 Introductory remarks 5.1.1 What should nor be done 5.1.2 What should be considered A fourfold approach Responsibility to the God of Scripture 53.1 Introduction 53.2. Definition 533. Explanation 5.3.4 Implications Responsibility to the community of faith 3.4.1 Introduction 5.42 Definition 5.43 Explanation 5.44. Implications Responsibility to the world at large 5.5.1 Introduction 5.5.2 Definition 5.5.3 Explanation 5.5.4 Implications Responsibility to the historical and universal church 5.6.1 Introduction 5.6.2 Definition 5.6.3 Explanation 5.6.4 Implications A PROPOSAL AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE HERMENEUTIC OF RESPONSIBILITY IN THE, EXEGETICAL PROCESS, WITH REFERENCE TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD 6.1 Applying the hermeneutic 62 Realms of application 6.2.1 Personal preparation for exegesis 6.22 The actual exegetical process 62.3 Ongoing demands after exegesis 19 119 120 121 125 127 127 (29 130 138 139 139 142 143 149 149 150 151 152 160 160 160 162 163 169 170 170 171 172 175 1786.3 Actualizing the hermeneutic of responsibility 179 63.1 A general flow diagram 180 6.3.2 Significant assessment questions 181 7. CONCLUSION 183 APPENDICES 185 A The research questionnaire 185 B Survey covering fetter 190 C Survey responses - section A 191 D Survey responses - section B 193 E Survey responses - section C 195 BIBLIOGRAPHY 199vi ABSTRACT Studies in hermeneutics have largely focused on hermeneutical method and the application of such methods; however, the significance of hermeneutical method in the actual exegetical process has received limited attention, particularly as it relates to the preaching event. It is necessary to examine the significance of hermeneutical method at two levels; namely, the theoretical and the practical levels. In considering the theoretical understanding, it is argued that there are seven broad categories of proposed influencing factors in the practical exegetical process; these being: 1) Intrapersonal, deriving from the person of the exegete. 2) Spiritual, deriving from the spiritual life of the exegete. 3) Community, arising in the community context within which the exegete seeks to interpret the biblical text. 4) Contextual, deriving from the cultural and social context of the exegete, 5) Methodological, shaping the manner in which the exegetical process is carried out. 6) Traditional, arising out of the historical context within which the exegete stands. 7) Academic, arising out of contexts which are either regarded as leamed or as respected, Hermeneutical method and methods may be categorized under methodological factors, and it is suggested that most hermeneutical theorists would argue for the primacy of methodological factors in general and hermeneutical method in particular. However, an examination of practice suggests that spiritual factors are regarded as more significant than methodological factors. On the basis of the research findings, the proposed influencing factors may be ranked as follows: 1 Spiritual 2 Methodological 3 Academic 4 Intrapersonal 5 Contextual / Community / Traditional,In the light of these theoretical considerations and research findings, it is argued that che most appropriate response to the significance of hermeneutical method is to call exegetes to a hermenentic of responsibility. The proposal is that the biblical exegete choose an appropriate method or methods for the given exegetical task; however, the application should be effected in a fourfold approach to the exegetical task, The fourfold approach challenges the exegete to be deliberately aware of their responsibility, at both a ility. These four realms being: theoretical and practical level, to four realms of responsi 1) The God of Scripture: The responsibility to the God of Scripture is that which acknowledges that the Christian Bible is a product of divine revelation, and that the God of that revelation is intimately involved in the practical exegetical task. 2) The community of faith: The responsibility to the community of faith is that responsibility which recognizes the community or communities of faith as forming a vital context for the practical exegetical task and the conclusions of that task. 3) The world at large: The responsibility to the world at large is that responsibility in response to which the exegete undertakes to deliberately consider the challenges presented to the biblical text and to the exegete by those contexts and persons who would be regarded as either on the fringe of the community of faith or outside of the community. 4) The historical and universal church: The responsibility to the historical and universal church is that responsibility by which the exegete recognizes their context as being part of the older history of the church and the greater setting of the universal church,vit {in applying the chosen hermeneutical method or methods in the context of a hermeneutic of responsibility the exegete would be required to consider and evaluate their practical exegesis in three areas: 1) Personal preparation for exegesis; 2) The actual exegetical process; 3) Ongoing demands after exegesis. The greatest challenge of the hermeneutic of responsibility is that the exegete positively acknowledge and respond to the demands of the four realms of responsibility. In other words, the greatest challenge in the exegetical process is not faithfiuiness to and proper application of hermeneutical method or methods. Rather, it will lie in the attitude with which the exegete approaches, effects and responds to the exegetical task in the context of the fourfold challenge of the hermeneutic of responsibility.1, INTRODUCTION Studies in hermeneutics have largely focused on hermeneutical method and the application of such methods; however, the significance of hermeneutical method and/or methods in the actual exegetical process has received limited or restricted attention, particularly as the issue relates to the preaching event, The purpose of this research will therefore be as presented in the title; namely, to consider the significance of hermeneutical method in recent biblical scholarship, with due consideration for both theory and practice. To this end, attention will be given to the relative significance of hermeneutical method! as understood in recent biblical scholarship’, In so doing, consideration will be given to both certain theoretical understandings of the significance of hermeneutical method, and to the practical situation’ as found particularly in the preaching event’, On the basis of these considerations, a proposal wil] be presented regarding a way ahead for those who participate in exegetical endeavours, 1.1 THE PROBLEM AND MOTIVATION FOR THIS RESEARCH Hermeneutical method refers to those methods which are designed to assist the biblical interpreter to discover the meaning of the biblical text, in the exegetical process, by means of certain set principles and guidelines. Hermeneutics has been simply defined '... [in] its traditional meaning [as] relatively simple: the discipline thet deals with principles of interpretation.’ (Kaiser & Silva 1994:15). ‘The purpose of such principles and guidelines is generally regarded as being that the person seeking to interpret and understand the bil cal text, the exegete, should do so with the intended meaning and a ' The reader should note that it is mot the intention of this research to examine the varieties of hermeneutical rmetiood and methods, nor to assess and evaluate such methods. The focus of the study is as defined and presented in the tite, . the significance of hermeneutical method Inthe light of the plethora of available literature, a deliberate choice has been made to utilize material dating from 1980 onward, Only in exceptional cases is reference made to material dated pre-1980, > A limited research survey was carried out amongst a sample of Baptist pastors serving in local Christian ‘churches, to test an hypothesis that will be derived on the basis of the apparent theoretical understanding of the significance of hermeneutical method. “It should be understood that the specific context of this research is that ofthe regular preaching event in the local Christian church and related contexts,{egitimate application of the biblical text foremost in mind, While this may appear to be a relatively simple process, Thompson (Ricoeur 1981:1, editor's introduction) has argued that ‘,,, the nature of language and meaning, of action, interpretation and subjectivity, are issues of growing concer to a wide range of contemporary disciplines.’ This has contributed to an ever increasing concern for actual hermeneutical method in the field of biblical interpretation (Vanhoozer 1998:9-11), with many scholars seeking to address the issue and issues of hermeneutical method and methods ftom various perspectives and schools of thought. However, in primary research carried out by Mijoga (1996)', among eighteen African Instituted Churches in Malawi, certain arguably unexpected results were forthcoming, Of significance was the finding that the respondents, ministers in local Christian communities and churches, regarded the actual meaning of the text as relatively unimportant, in comparison with seven other factors and issues, in their preparation for exegesis for the preaching event. In the research, the respondents rated the following factors and issues as important, by percentage (Mijoga 1996:362) 1 Texts and themes 39% 2 Not to disappoint the audience 33% 3= Mood of the listeners 1% People’s condition 171% Prayer 1% Meaning of the text 6% 6= Occasion 6% Polemics 6% In addition to the above, when attention was given to possible solutions to the problems faced in the exegetical process, the following suggestions were proposed ( 1996:365-367):1 Experience 2% 2 Prayer 33% 3= Training 1% 3= Use of commentaries 1% 5 Hymns 11% Reflecting on this research® gives rise to the question of how significant hermeneutical method actually is in the exegesis of the biblical text, in the particular context of local church ministry and the specific context of the preaching event. While a significant concern for hermeneutical method can be understood, it is necessary to ask whether this concern is truly justified and what the implications may be if the average church minister and preacher is not as concemed for hermeneutical method and methods as many scholars and hermeneutical theorists may be, In this regard, it is significant to note that Farris (1997:358) suggests that there may be a split ‘... between the expert culture of the academic guild of biblical scholars and the everyday life and practice of the churches, between professors of the Bible and those who preach and listen to sermons.” This question is given more significance when Farris (1997:367, italics added) reflects on the role of biblical studies, proposing that the role of biblical studies {including hermeneut s] ... is to teach the wrestler preacher a few new holds. Which hold is the most useful? In the end it hardly matters what holds are used as long as it is the God of Israet and of our Lord Jesus Christ with whom we wrestle, Any method of interpretation will suffice as long as it is God to whom we are listening in these texts. If that is kept firmly in view, the style of wrestling does not matter very much. We may limp away from the encounter, but we will limp away with a blessing. = In preparation and researc, no other similar research was found or sourced. “Even with an acknowledgement of probable limitations inthe nature of the quoted research and the sarmple population utilized,If the assessment of Farris is correct, then the argument for a developed hermeneutic and the primacy of hermeneutical method will lose much of its force and impact. 1.2 THE PURPOSE OF THIS RESEARCH In the light of the above reflections, the issue that needs to be examined is that of the relative significance of hermeneutical method in the exegesis of the biblical text, with a concern for the context of the preaching event, This focus is important in that most Christian ministers and workers find themselves in situations where they are required to proclaim the message of the Christian Scriptures, and, in preparation for proclamation, «0 exegete and interpret the biblical text or texts under consideration, Most equipping and training in the theory and practice of hermeneutics assumes the primacy of method in the exegetical process; however, the question that needs to be examined is what the impact would be if it were to be established that, for most preachers of the biblical text, hermeneutical method is of limited relative significance in the exegetical process. The purpose of this research is, therefore, to examine the relative significance of hermeneutical method and methodology, with a concern for the context of the preaching event. In other words, the research will seek to examine the function and role of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process of those persons who are involved in preaching. While other exegetical contexts, including the academic and theoretical contexts, are not unimportant, they do not form part of the particular concem of this research; however, itis arguable that the conclusions and proposals that will be examined and presented in this research will be equally applicable to such contexts, In the light of the findings of this research regarding the significance of hermeneutical method, certain proposals will be put forward as to how the discipline of hermeneutics and the practice of exegesis may move in addressing the challenges presented to hermeneutics and exegesis.1.3. APPROACH AND METHOD OF THIS RESEARCH In addressing the problem outlined above and the related questions, the research has been based on both a consideration of the theoretical understandings in hermeneutics, and an examination of the practice and practices of persons involved in the ongoing and practical exegetical task. The main issues that will receive attention are as follows: > A consideration of certain theoretical understandings of the significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process, The concern of this section will be to examine recent biblical scholarship, with a view to developing an appreciation of how that scholarship understands the role and significance of hermeneutical method and/or methods in the practical exegetical process. > An analysis of certain proposals as to factors, other than hermeneutical method, which may bear on the exegesis of the biblical text, It is necessary to give consideration to potential further factors that may directly or indirectly influence and impact on the exegetical process. These factors constitute the arguably greater context within which the exegete seeks to apply the chosen method or methods as they endeavour to interpret the biblical text. > An examination of the relative significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process in the preparation for the preaching event. Having considered the theoretical understanding, a limited research survey was carried out amongst a sample of Baptist pastors serving in local Christian churches, to test an hypothesis that will be derived on the basis of the apparent theoretical understanding of the significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process. The particular concern of this reseatch will be the act of interpretation of the biblical (ext, when the minister is preparing to preach in the local church setting.> An endeavour to respond to the preceding findings and conclusions by developing a new approach to hermeneutical method. In the light of the theoretical and research findings, a new approach to the hermeneutical process will be presented, which seeks to bring the application of hermeneutical method ot methods into a working relationship with the demands which are placed on the exegete. > A proposal as to how the new approach may be applied to the practical exegetical process. ‘The research will conclude with a proposal as to how the new approach may be implemented in the practical context within which the exegete is effecting the task of interpreting the biblical text as an ongoing endeavour. It is intended that this research will contribute to the ongoing debate around and challenges (o the considerations of hermeneutical theory and the practice of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process. 2. A CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CURRENT THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD IN THE EXEGETICAL PROCESS Before attention can be paid to the relative significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process, consideration needs to be given to an overview of the current theoretical understanding of the significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process with reference to the preaching event. Consequently, the purpose of this section is to consider the theoretical understanding of the role of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process. As such, it is necessary to pay attention to the following areas of concern © The definition of essential terms’; namely, hermeneutical method, exegetical Tin terms of the broader context of this research, the reader should note tha the defining of terms will nt be exhaustive and by implication will be selective yet comprehensive.process, and preaching event. «An examination of the argued interrelationship between hermeneutical method, exegetical process, and preaching event. © A consideration of certain important implications of the argued interrelationship between hermeneutical method, exegetical process, and preaching event. Itis intended that this section will establish the theoretical foundation on which the actual research will be based; together with a further consideration in the following section, 4 analysis of proposals as to factors, other than hermeneutical method, which may bear on the exegesis of the biblical text 2.1 DEFINING TERMS In order to complete meaningful research, it is necessary to define all essential and relevant terms. While it is acknowledged that definitions have limitations and variations, this section will consider various proposed definitions and understandings of the selected terms, and also present the definitions that will be used throughout the actual research process and in the drawing of the relevant conclusions. 2.1.1 HERMENEUTICAL METHOD 2.1.1.1 THE MEANING OF HERMENEUTICS ‘The word translated hermeneutics in the English language derives from the Greek verb herméneud, which simply means to interpret. A further tradition has suggested that the word finds its origin in ... Hermes, the messenger of the gods in Greek mythology. His task was to explain to humans the plans, the decisions and thoughts of the gods. His explanations, his language, his speech, his interpretations, were meant to bridge the gap between the gods (who spoke) and the human beings(who listened, received, and had to understand). His work, hermeneuein (hermeneutics), therefore has something to do with explanation, with speech, with translation, with communicating a message, with interpreting something for people who want to hear and understand, Therefore, the expression “hermeneutics” was coined to refer to this “art of interpretation”. (Smit 1998:275-276) In the light of the probable origins of the term hermeneutics as a discipline it is therefore best and generally understood in one of two ways: firstly, the narrower understanding of hermeneutics as the theory of interpretation; and, secondly, the broader understanding of hermeneutics as addressing both the theory and the practice of interpretation. Based on the first narrow understanding, Conradie (et al 1995:12) has suggested that The academic discipline that concentrates on a study and an analysis of the process of interpretation is called hermeneutics. The concept “hermeneutics” refers to a theoretical, more abstract reflection on the process of interpretation, In this use of the concept, “hermeneutics” is not in itself an act of interpretation; it is primarily a reflection on interpretation. In other words, hermeneutics stands back from the actual act of interpretation of any written text or work of art, and gives attention to the process and processes of such interpretation by considering both the text or art under consideration and the person or persons who seck to understand it (Jeanrond 1991:1-3). Asa result, Ricoeur (1981:43) has [adopted] the following working definition of hermencutics: hermeneutics is the theory of the operations of understanding in the relation to the interpretation of texts.” Wood (1993:11) summarizes the meaning of hermeneutics ‘... as designating, simply, the discipline ofinterpretation: hermeneutics is critical reflection upon the practice of interpretation — its aims, conditions, and criteria. Considering the second broader understanding, Virkler (1981:16) defines hermeneutics in paradigm: the twofold sense of a scientific and arts In its technical meaning, hermeneutics is often defined as science and art of ... interpretation. Hermeneutics is considered a science because it has rules and these rules can be classified into an orderly system. It is considered an art because communication is flexible, and therefore a mechanical and rigid application of rules will sometimes distort the true meaning of communication. To be a good interpreter one must leam the rules of interpretation as well as the art of applying those rules. Therefore, hermeneutics is understood as being both the theory (science) and the practice (application) of interpretation, Lundin, Thiselton & Walhout (1985:61, italics added) have suggested that‘... hermeneutics is not ... a general theory of all the uses of texts but of the understanding or interpretation of texts.” Itis, therefore, clear that the meaning of hermeneutics, as used by various persons, may ‘vary and that the reader must at all times be clear as to which meaning is intended in any reference or source. The particular understanding for use in the context of this research will be determined in 2.1.1.4 where a research definition will be presented, 2.1.1.2 THE MEANING OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS Having given brief consideration to the meaning of hermeneutics, it is necessary to consider the term biblical hermeneutics. While it is to be understood that hermeneutics, asa discipline, has far wider application than to the Christian Scriptures alone®, there is a particular significance to the use of hermeneutics in the study of the Christian Scriptures or Bible,10 In addition, the significance of biblical hermeneutics also lies in the fact that, generally speaking, the concern and emphasis is one that would broadly be described as Christian. The adjective “theological” [or “biblical”] before the noun [hermeneutics] indicates that in this case such critical [interpretive] reflection is to be informed by theological considerations. That is, rather than asking in general how the biblical text may be understood or what values may be realized in its interpretation, theological hermeneutics asks more specifically how the text may be Christianly understood and what the aims of a deliberate Christian use of it might be. Of course, these specifically theological questions are to be pursued within the context of general hermeneutical reflection upon the problems and possibilities of textual interpretation, but the exact relationship of the theological inquiry to that context is always at issue and cannot be taken for granted. (Wood 1993:11). Therefore, biblical hermeneutics has a particular concer for the Christian Scriptures and ethos, and is always influenced by that concen and ethos. “Biblical hermeneutics is ... a reflection on the interpretation of the Bible, Its primary goal is not to provide new, creative biblical interpretations but to analyse the various factors and problems that may play a role in biblical interpretation.’ (Conradie et al 1995:12). As Bloesch (1985:78) has reflected, ‘The discipline of biblical hermeneutics ... deals with the principles governing the interpretation of Scripture ....” 2.1.1.3 THE MEANING OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD Having come to terms with the meaning of hermeneutics and biblical hermeneutics, attention must be given to the meaning of hermeneutical method. Understanding that the context of this research is that of the preaching event in the local Christian community, * See for example the contributions of Fish (1980), Gadamer (1975 & 1976) and Ricoeur (1974 & 1981).hermeneutical method will by implication be referring to that methodology utilized in the interpretation of the biblical text. Keegan (1985:3) has proposed that ‘... hermeneutics, in any field of enquiry, is concerned with interpretation. Biblical hermeneutics is concerned with methods for interpreting the text of the Bible.” Hermeneutical method then refers to the method chosen for the particular task of interpreting and understanding the biblical text. While many varieties of method have been proposed’, every interpreter of the biblical text approaches the task of interpretation with a particular method or methods in mind, whether such method or methods are particularly understood and deliberately chosen or not. 2.1.1.4 THE RESEARCH DEFINITION OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD For the purposes of this research, hermeneztical method shall be understood to refer to the interpretive method or methods utilized by the preacher in the exegetical process in the preparation for the preaching event. The following aspects of the definition need to be noted: * The definition derives from the narrower understanding of hermeneutics and focuses on the theoretical method or methods that the preacher may claim to utilize. . The particular concern of this study is on the exegetical process in the particular context of the preaching event; therefore, the concern is not strictly with the method or methods utilized in the study of the biblical text for academic or related purposes, while such methods may be utilized outside of such narrow contexts. ° consideration of methods is found in many sources. The interested reader may consult the following works, amongst others: Bray (1996), Deist & Burden {(980), Fee & Stuart (1993), Kaiser & Silva (1994), Keegan (1985), Longman (1987), McKim (1986), McKnight (1988 & 1989) and Morgan & Barton (1988),2.1.2 EXEGETICAL PROCESS 2.1.2.1 THE MEANING OF EXEGESIS Having come to an understanding of hermeneutics and hermeneutical method, the meaning of the term exegesis needs to be clarified. A basic definition of exegesis is presented by Packer (1983:345) who proposes that ‘... exegesis means bringing out of the text all that it contains of the thoughts, attitudes, assumptions, and so forth ~ in short, the whole expressed mind — of the human writer.’ Exegesis, therefore, refers to that activity which is concerned with the discovery of meaning of a written text; and, in the context of this research, the meaning of the biblical text. However, it is also not a random task; exegesis is a process that carries with it certain demands and requirements. Exegesis ... is concemed with the process by which one understands a text and by which one is able to tell what one has understood, In doing these things, one is conventionally said to be interpreting the text in question. Exegesis is merely a more learned term for {the act of] interpretation. It derives from the Greek word meaning, quite simply, “interpretation” or “explanation”. (Deist & Burden 1980:1). Furthermore, exegesis needs to be understood as inclusive of the critical task, not simply the affirmation or reaffirmation of previously held convictions and understandings Addressing the need for a critical approach to exegesis, Carson (1996:16) argues that The essence of all critical thought, in the best sense of that abused expression, is the justification of opinions. A critical interpretation of Scripture is one that has adequate justification — lexical, grammatical, cultural, theological, historical, geographical, or other justification. In other words, critical exegesis is opposed to merely personal opinions, appeals to blind authority (the interpreter’s or any one else's), arbitraryinterpretations, and speculative opinions, This is not to deny that spiritual things are spiritually discerned, or to argue that piety is irrelevant; it is to say rather that not even piety and the gift of the Holy Spirit guarantee infallible interpretations, 2.1.2.2 THE FUNCTION OF EXEGESIS Understanding that exegesis is interpretation, the function of exegesis is then threefold: firstly, to discover the meaning of a given text for the first time; secondly, the subsequent re-examination and re-evaluation of such texts and meanings; and, thirdly, to furnish the reasons for a given understanding of a specific text or texts, The first function of exegesis rests on the task placed before any reader of the biblical text, and that is to come to a meaningful understanding of the text under consideration, with an emphasis on the text in its broadest context. Virkler (1981:18) suggests that Exegesis is the application of the principles of hermeneutics to arrive at a correct understanding of che [biblical] text. The prefix ex (“out of,” or “from”) refers to the idea that the interpreter is attempting to derive his understanding from the text, rather than reading his meaning into the text (cisegesis). is the endeavour to discover the Therefore, it is apparent that the first function of exegesis intended meaning of the text under examination. ‘The first task of the interpreter is called exegesis. Exegesis is the careful, systematic study of the Scripture to discover the intended meaning. This is basically a historical task. It is the attempt to hear the Word as the original recipients were to have heard it, to find out what was the original intent of the words of the Bible. (Pee & Stuart 1993:19). The second function of exegesis is the subsequent re-examination and re-evaluation of the studied text and texts, Unless the exegete of the Bible is prepared to accept as once-4 for-all correct the initial understanding of the text, the need for ongoing re-examination and re-evaluation is paramount to a meaningful interpretation and understanding of the text under consideration, Pieterse (1987:108) highlights this demand by arguing that exegesis is in fact a process of understanding, not a static, once-for-all event. The process of understanding through which the preacher seeks to interpret a text for his own congregation is highly complex and fraught with pitfalls. The preacher must satisfy various exegetical requirements and must consciously engage in a process of understanding if he is to produce a responsibie interpretation. Deriving from the second function is the third, which is to enable the exegete to furnish the reasons for a given understanding of a specific biblical text or texts, Deist & Burden (1980:3) suggest that ‘... exegesis fulfils two functions. First, it checks or tests one’s initial understanding of a text [see second function above]. Second [here, the third function], it furnishes reasons why someone understands a text in a particular way.’ The function of exegesis brings with it the responsibility, on the part of the exegete, to be able to motivate and substantiate the argued interpretation or understanding of the bibiical text. 2.1.2.3 THE MEANING OF EXEGETICAL PROCESS If exegesis is that which seeks after the meaning of the biblical text, then exegetical process simply refers to the process by and in which the exegete carries out that task. In other words, exegesis has to be done, it does not simply happen, and it is the task of the exegete to study the biblical text in the process referred to as the exegetical process. In fact, itis important to realize that every reader of the Bible is involved at some level in an exegetical process. ‘The interpretation of the Bible is, on the one hand, neither difficult nor complicated. It is so simple that everyone achieves it. Interpretation occurs subconsciously and inevitably whenever the Bible is read. Indeed,whenever the Bible is read, it has some effect on people’s lives, however slight... The above indicates that it is not necessary to be trained to interpret the Bibie; we do it whenever we read the Bible. It occurs quite spontaneously. There is, of course, another side of the coin, Biblical interpretation is at the same time a very complex process. It is extremely difficult to define or describe the process of interpretation adequately. (Conradie et al 1995:3). ‘The exegetical process is, hence, one that takes place whenever the Bible is read, but the depth and awareness of the process may vary from reader to reader and exegete to exegete. 2.1.2.4 THE RESEARCH DEFINITION OF EXEGETICAL PROCESS For the purposes of this research, exegetical process shall be understood to refer to the conscious or unconscious process by which the preacher seeks to understand the biblical text in preparation for the preaching event. The following aspects of the definition need to be noted: © The definition acknowledges that not all persons who seek to understand the biblical text in preparation for the preaching event do so deliberately, hence the use of the phrase, conscious or unconscious process. © The particular emphasis of the definition is in the context of the preaching event; therefore, as with the definition of hermeneutical method, the concern is with the preaching event and not the study of the text for academic or related purposes.16 2.1.3 PREACHING EVENT 2.1.3.1 THE MEANING OF PREACHING While preaching is a weekly event in the lives of almost every person purporting to be Christian and in the programme of most Christian communities, it still remains necessary to understand the meaning of preaching in an age of change” and in an age where the place of preaching is under challenge''. Certain definitions are very basic and simple, such as Willson & Gaventa (1998:392), *... “from text to sermon” has long described the central task of preaching.”; or Adam (1996:70), ‘We have described preaching as “the explanation and application of the Word in the assembled congregation of Christ” However, there is also a depth to preaching which has been outlined by Dingemans (1996:39), who suggests that In every sermon there should be three levels: (1) a level of explanation, information, and clarification, in which the meaning of the text is transmitted. The aim is docere (teaching) explanation of the historical, sociological, and theological backgrounds of the text and, of course, the transmission of its meaning to the congregation; (2) a level of proclamation, persuasion, and appeal, in which the message and the power of the text is transmitted. The aim is movere (moving and persuading): confronting the congregation with the moves, challenges, and the driving "° One of the consequences of contemporary change is found in the challenge to preaching of postmodemnity. Clements (1999:175-176) outlines the challenge to expository preaching: “Firs. expository preaching is rationalistic, pursuing a detailed analysis of the biblical text. But postmodems are impatient with that kind of mental discipline. “Secondly, expository preaching is elitist. It appeals only to intellectuals who have had the concentration span and linear logic to benefit from it “Thirdly, expository preaching is unacceptably authoritarian. Postmodems wish to affirm the validity of all insights and emphases. “To cap it all its opponents argue that expository preaching is unbiblical, In his matchless parables Jesus pioneered an altemative style of preaching which, by the vividness of its imagery and narrative style, is brilliantly adapted to the needs of postmodern culture. "' See the comments and observations in Home (1975), Padilla (1981) and Rees (1994)."7 powers of the text; and (3) a level of basic trust and relation, in which the credibility and reliability of the text, the church, and the preacher is shown. The aim is declatare and conciliare (pleasing, propitiating, and reconciliation); the consolidation and confirmation of the common faith, if possible in an entertaining and easy way. That is the most difficult task of preaching, the genus grande, as the old rhetors said, to transmit the passion, the deepest moves of faith, without the dangers of superficiality ora false pathos. Preaching is, therefore, an activity that moves beyond ordinary communication to a depth that far exceeds everyday conversation, For this reason, Claypool (1989:28) speaking of the preaching event and considering the enormity of the task of preaching, for the 108" annual Lyman Beecher Lectures at the Divinity School of Yale University, says: ‘Lhave chosen to entitle these lectures The Preaching Event, for it is my deepest conviction that when ones stands to engage in this particular act, far more takes place than the mere speaking and hearing of words... ‘Authentic preaching catches up all the faculties of the human beings involved in the process — their minds and bodies and emotions as well as their tongues and ears. Thus it can rightly be called an event, something that happens so wholistically that it leaves the kind of impact on one that, accompanies participation in any sort of decisive happening,” Preaching is then the declaration of the meaning, implication and application of the Christian Scriptures, but in a manner that generally needs to exceed the demands of most other forms of communication. 2.1.3.2 THE VARIETIES OF PREACHING With preaching being the declaration of the meaning, implication and application of the Christian Scriptures, the question needs to be asked, Jn what manner may such preaching occur? While numerous sources may be valuable in identifying the varieties ofpreaching, Achtemeier (1981) has outlined four main categories of preaching prominent in the U.S.A. today, which are repeated by other sources in various and varying forms!*: [1]... the approach that sees preaching as primarily a setting forth of the truth of biblical propositions; we could in fact label such preaching “propositional preaching [otherwise referred to as expository preaching (Robinson, 1980:20) or textual preaching (Thompson 19812:9)).”. (Achtemeier 1981:20-21, italics added), [2]... “thematic preaching [otherwise referred to as topical preaching (Caemmerer 1981:9 & Thompson 19812:9)]”. Such preaching may start with a biblical text, it may deal with a Christian doctrine, it may discuss a topic of the day in the light of Christian belief, But generally, there is a “theme” to the sermon which dominates its thought... (Achtemeier 1981:22, italics added). [3.] __... the third form of preaching ... which is not widely practised, and yet which may hold the most promise for the future of preaching, because it can take seriously the effective and dynamic nature of the biblical Word. There is no agreed upon title for this homiletical form, but we might call it “creational” or “creative preaching,” because it understands the continuing creative action and speaking of the Word among God’s gathered people... Now we are talking of the creative power of language and form, through which the congregation can be enabled to “live” the biblical story so that it becomes their story, créating the same salvific effects in the lives that that story first created in Israel and in the primitive church. (Achtemeier 1981:26-28, italics added). " See, for example: Caemmerer (1981), Claypool (1989), Craddock (1985), Farley (1996), Hunter (1988), Pieterse (1987), Rees (1984), Robinson (1980) and Thompson (1981)19 [4.] _ ... “experimental preaching” ... [encompassing] a wide variety of substitutes for the traditional sermon: first-person sermons, dialogue and multilogue sermons, sermons formed from participation by the congregation, press conference sermons, dramatic monologues or multilogues, oral readings, mime, symbolic dance, verse sermons, imaginative parables or allegories, dialogues with newspapers or musical instruments, sermons formed from literature or hymns, use of various audiovisual aids in conjunction with the spoken word, folk-masses, religious musical dramas ~ the list is as endless as the human imagination, (Achtemeier, 1981:29 italics added). At the heart of each proposed variety of preaching lies the simple desire and intention to declare the meaning, implication and application of the Christian Scriptures — such is the task of preaching. 2.1.3.3 THE DEMANDS OF PREACHING By its very nature and in a world of rapid change, there are certain significant demands on preaching and preachers. The first demand of note is the challenge to bring together the world or horizon of the biblical text with that of the contemporary world and listener. “The task facing any preacher is to fuse the “two horizons” of the biblical text and the contemporary world in the experience of the listener.’ (Clements 1999:178)"°, This demand is made all the more challenging if it is accepted that Jesus Christ, who was an historical figure, is at the center and heart of preaching in the Christian context. In addressing an argued crisis in preaching and in the pulpit, Horne (1975:23) proposed that ‘The focus of preaching is God’s redemptive action for us in Jesus Christ... The focus of preaching must not be blurred, and Jesus Christ must be clearly seen against a background of a long series of saving events, And Thiselton’s The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description (1980) and ‘New Horizons in Hermeneutics (1992) are of particular importance and value in this regard20 He must be seen in relation to other truths that radiate from Him as center. He will be the touchstone by which we judge all spiritual reality... As preachers we are called upon to be many things to many people. We are called upon always to preach Jesus Christ, He is the focus of our preaching The second demand of preaching is the challenge to take the audience and listeners seriously, recognizing them as more than simply passive recipients of that which has been prepared and is being presented. Commenting on Calvin’s definition of the church, Zink- Sawyer (1997:342) has said the following: Any student of the Reformed tradition can recite Calvin’s famous definition of the church: “Whenever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists.” Often, however, that definition is truncated in restatements 50 as to refer to “the word purely preached and the sacraments rightly administered,” ignoring those who hear the preached word. The results are a conception of homiletics as one-way communication and a dangerous neglect of a crucial component of the homiletical task. It is, therefore, critical that the preacher take seriously the demand and demands of an audience and listeners who seek to be active participants in the experience and event of preaching. Finally is the demand that that which is preached be applied in the context of the life experience and situation of the audience and listeners, Con Liefeld (1984:7) argues that *.. While the Spirit of God may be pleased to lead the congregation to an application even if ing expository preaching, out application ... is information, not a message. the preacher fails to make it, the preacher dare not abdicate his responsibility to be God’s spokesman, prophet, or evangelist.’ This means that from the very beginning of preparation to the act of preaching, the exegete and preacher is to keep in mind the2 audience and listeners: ‘All preaching involves a “so what?” ... A sermon touches life. It demands application.” (Robinson 1989:59).. Every preacher is, therefore, to respond to these three key demands of preaching’; namely: © Bridging the gap between biblical text and contemporary audience; * Actively considering the place and needs of the contemporary audience; = Positively applying that which is declared to the contemporary audience, 2.1.3.4 THE RESEARCH DEFINITION OF PREACHING EVENT For the purposes of this research, preaching event shall be understood to refer to the declaration of the meaning, implication and application of the Christian Scriptures, recognizing the varieties of form in which that may take place and acknowledging the demands placed upon the preacher. The following aspects of the definition need to be noted: © The definition recognizes all forms of the preaching event; however, this research will deliberately focus on the regular, usually Sunday, preaching event in the life of a Christian church or community. . It will not be the intention of this research to evaluate the effectiveness and form or forms of preaching and preaching method chosen ané utilized by preachers 2.2. EXAMINING INTERRELATIONSHIPS Having defined the terms, in the context of this research, it is now necessary 10 examine the theoretical understanding as to the interrelationships between the terms. In order to "* Other demands may include: the basic challenge of the initial interpretation of Scripture; dealing with the challenges of culture and cultural differences; the changing worldview and worldviews of many people ‘and groups; and the call for meaningful relationships with those who are the audience and listeners.do so, the following interrelationships will be examined: * Hermeneutical method ~ exegetical process; © Exegetical process ~ preaching event; © Hermeneutical method ~ exegetical process ~ preaching event. ‘The purpose of this examination will, therefore, be to establish a theoretical basis for the hypothesis that will be evaluated in this research 2.2.1 HERMENEUTICAL METHOD - EXEGETICAL PROCESS 2.2.1.1 THE BASIC RELATIONSHIP Accepting that hermeneutical method refers to the interpretive method or methods utilized by the preacher (2.1.1.4, research definition) and that exegetical process refers to the conscious or unconscious process by which the preacher seeks to understand the biblical text (2.1.2.4, research definition), the basic relationship would need to be understood as being one in which the hermeneutical method directs and guides the exegetical process at whatever depth may or may not apply. Kaiser (1981:47) reflects on this relationship as follows: while hermeneutics will seek to describe the general and special principles and rules which are useful in approaching the Biblical text, exegesis will seek to identify the single truth-intention of individual phrases, clauses, and sentences as they make up the thought of paragraphs, sections, and, ultimately, entire books. Accordingly, hermeneutics may be regarded as the theory that guides exegesis; exegesis may be understood .. to be the practice of and the set of procedures for discovering the author’s intended meaning. In other words, the function of hermeneutical method is to establish the theoretical basis on which the exegetical process is effected.2B 2.2.1.2 THE DISCIPLINE LIMITATION: Considering that the two terms under consideration do not refer to the same elements, it is important to consider the limits and limitations of the two. The limits of hermeneutical method and the exegetical process are proposed by Carson (1996:25) to be that exegesis is concerned with actually interpreting the text, whereas hermeneutics [and hermeneutical method] is concerned with the nature of the interpretative process. Exegesis concludes by saying, “This passage means such and such”; hermeneutics ends by saying, “This interpretative process is constituted by the following techniques and pre- understandings.” ‘The two are obviously related. But although hermeneutics is an important discipline in its own right, ideally it is never an end in itself: it serves exegesis. However, the question may be asked as to which of the two is more important. It needs to be acknowledged that while every person interprets or does exegesis, not every person is aware of or deliberate uses a hermeneutical method or methods. If all people interpret, but not all people are aware of that reality, nor are all people deliberately using hermeneutical method or methods, then how do the two relate? Wolterstorff (1997:27) has argued that .. it does not follow that hermeneutics is important, Interpretation, yes Interpretation is not only pervasive but also unavoidable: without interpretation, we human beings could not live in this world of ours, given how we experience it, We are consigned to be, or honored with being, interpreting creatures. But theory of interpretation is a different matter. Why is hermeneutics important? Or is it? I might begin to answer these questions by noting that if hermeneutics is important, it is certainly not all important. Most of us do most of our interpreting, and some of us do all our interpreting, without having any24 theory of interpretation in hand... Put the other way around: the very activities of devising and appropriating theories of interpretation presupposes the ability, on the part of the devisers and appropriators, to interpret. Therefore, itis of significance to note that hermeneutical method per se may or may not be a deliberately vital part of the exegetical process; and that the exegetical process is continually taking place, whether or not the interpreter is deliberately using a hermeneutical method or methods. 2.2.1.3 THE RELATIONSHIP ILLUSTRATED On the basis of the foregoing discussion, the relationship between hermeneutical method and the exegetical process may be illustrated as follows: EXEGETICAL PROCESS > (always taking place) a Z 7 The hermeneutical method/s shape/s the exegetical process, whether e directly or indirectly , HERMENEUTICAL METHOD (deliberate or incidental) This illustration assumes that there are no other factors influencing the place and role of hermeneutical method on the exegetical process. This research will examine that assumption; however, it is important to note that the following findings were made in the course of the study of the sources for this research: * Most sources appeared to assume the primacy of hermeneutical method, whether direct or indirect, in the exegetical process (see, for example, Robinson 1980 and Thiselton 1980 & 1992), * Those sources that acknowledged the possible influence of other factors still28 Contemporary setting PREACHING EVENT @ More than the fruit of tne ‘exegetical process informing, supplying, supporting, but not all inclusive & determinative EXEGETICAL PROCESS ‘Always taking place ‘As can be observed, the exegetical process is important to, but not all inclusive and determinative in the final form of the preaching event itself. It may be said that the exegetical process is critical to but not absolute in the preaching event. 2.2.3. HERMENEUTICAL METHOD - EXEGETICAL PROCESS - PREACHING EVENT 2.2.3.1 THE BASIC INTERRELATIONSHIP Having considered the two basic relationships, it remains to examine the interrelationship between the three main terms being considered; namely, hermeneutical method, exegetical process, and preaching event. Of particular concem is how hermeneutical method may be regarded as relating to the preaching event, since that relationship that will be of significant concern in this research, as it is effected at the point of the exegetical process. Understanding the relationships, hermeneutical method ~ exegetical process and exegetical process ~ preaching event, it remains to consider the consequent relationship between hermeneutical method and the preaching event.29 If hermeneutical method is accepted to be determinative in the exegetical process, and if the exegetical process is critical to the preaching event, then it may be argued that hermeneutical method, in the context of preaching, is critical to the preaching event Osborne (1991:12) contends that the final goal of hermeneutics is not systematic theology but the sermon, The actual purpose of Scripture is not explanation but exposition, not description but proclamation. God's Word speaks to every generation, and that relationship between meaning and significance summarizes the hermeneutical task. It is not enough to recreate the intended meaning of the passage, We must elucidate its significance for today, Osbome (1991:339) then continues As stated in the introduction, the true goal of hermeneutics is not the commentary but the sermon, The commentary performs an important task in opening up the original intended meaning of the biblical passage. However, the true purpose of the Bible is not static (as an object of study) but dynamic (as a life-changing mechanism). Therefore, contextualization is a necessary goal of interpretation. Meaning and significance unite in the hermeneutical process, and it is the sermon that best brings the two. aspects together. 2.2.3.2 THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THE DISCIPLINES Osborne (1991:13) proposes ten stages of interpretation as being: A Exegetical Theology: 1. Chart book. Line diagram of passage. Grammatical study. Semantical study. Syntactical study. Background.30 B. Theology: 7. Biblical 8. Historical. 9. Systematic. 10. Homiletical, © Stages 1-5 being inductive study, with stages 6-10 being deductive. * Stages 3-5 discover the kere! idea of the passage. Smit (1987:78) refers to three main stages of study, which again reflect the continuity from hermeneutical method to preaching event: Part 1: Exegetical > The text itself, > The world behind the text. Part 2: Hermeneutical > The world in front of the text, > Suspicion and criticism. Part 3: Homiletical > The spiral of understanding. > The context. © Hermeneutical method directs part 1 & 2. © Parts 1&2 are the exegetical process. © Part 3 moves to the preaching event. In essence, the theoretical understanding of the relationship between hermeneutical method and the preaching event is summed up by Liefeld (1984:17-18) who argues that there is a need .. to observe sound principles in hermeneutics. Actually, this should be done whatever kind of sermon one preaches, for any sermon includes (or should include) teaching from Scripture ... any hermeneutical failure can disable the entire presentation and result in preaching error. ‘The preacher31 should have had a good course in hermeneutics in seminary, He must keep in mind what he has leaned, review his textbook and notes, or, if he did not have a course as such, read at least one good book on hermeneutics before attempting exposition. The failure to take this challenge seriously resulted in what Gadamer (1975:274-275) ‘addresses when he suggests that The edifying application of scripture ... in christian proclamation and preaching now seemed quite a different thing from the historical and theological understanding of it... Thus we are forced to go ... one stage beyond romantic hermeneutics, by regarding not only understanding and interpretation, but also application as comprising one unified process ... we consider application to be as integral a part of the hermeneutical act as are understanding and interpretation, 2.2.3.2 THE INTERRELATIONSHIP ILLUSTRATED Contemporary settin PREACHING EVENT, “EXEGETICAL PROCESS ea - 7 ¢ : 7 « 7 HERMENEUTICAL METHOD In the light of the above illustration, based on the current theoretical understanding of the significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process in the preparation for the32 preaching event, the following observations may be made: * That hermeneutical method/s shape/s the exegetical process, whether directly or indirectly. * That the exegetical process informs, supplies and supports the preaching event; but is not all inclusive and determinative for the preaching event. © That, consequently, it is generally held that hermeneutical method holds a significant, if not primary, role in the preaching event; and in the event of there being other influencing factors on the exegetical process, such may be dealt with by means of an appropriate method. Attention will now be paid to the implications of the theoretical sources and understanding that have been considered in the preceding section. 2.3. CONSIDERING IMPLICATIONS, In the light of the preceding consideration of the theoretical understanding of the significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process, in the specific context of the preaching event, itis important to examine that theory in three main ways: * By considering the basic assumptions accepted in the theoretical understanding; * By considering possible weaknesses in the theoretical understanding; * By considering the critical question to be asked of the theoretical understanding. These considerations are important as they present the basis for the research question to be examined further. 2.3.1 CONSIDERING THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS ‘There are arguably four main assumptions upon which most theorists and certain practitioners base their understanding of the relationship hermeneutical method — exegetical process ~ preaching event. While it is accepted that these assumptions may not be true for all persons and that they may not be acknowledged by all, they would probably encapsulate the theoretical understanding. These assumptions are:33 * That hermeneutical method is primary in the exegesis of the biblical text in preparation for the preaching event. * That other factors which may influence exegesis may be dealt with by means of an adequate hermeneutical method. * That preachers will always deliberately utilize hermeneutical method in the exegetical process in preparation for the preaching event. + That preachers are willing to submit themselves to the findings of the exegetical process. Attention will be paid 10 each of these assumptions separately, while acknowledging that certain assumptions have not been and will not be addressed. 2.3.1.1 PRIMACY OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD ‘The first basic assumption appears to be that, for most exegetes, hermeneutical method is primary in the exegetical process. The very definition of the term hermeneutical method sin as the interpretive method or methods utilized by the preacher in the exegetical proct the preparation for the preaching event, places method in the primary position in the exegesis of the biblical text for the preaching event. For example, Klein (1998:325-326) argues that ... Evangelicals are committed to get at the true meaning of the biblical text... the objective of hermeneutics {hermeneutical method and exegetical process] is to enable interpreters to artive at the meaning of the text that the biblical writers or editors intended their readers to understand, ... Evangelicals affirm that the proper goal of the task of interpretation is to extract the meaning of the texts themselves. The argument is that with adequate hermeneutical method the exegetical process will deliver the true meaning of the biblical text, and that such a true meaning is what the preacher can proclaim.34 Thiselton (1992:10-16) argues and addresses certain aspects of the development of hermeneutics, suggesting that older methods have been replaced with newer methods, and these with even newer methods. This reflects the focus of hermeneutical theorists to continually be seeking after rhe method or methods that will be most effective in the exegetical process. It may even be argued that Gadamer (1975 & 1976), in seeking to move away from method, simply formed the foundation upon which others would develop their new methods. Gadamer himself may even have developed his own new method that has been utilized and adapted by others. In summary it is probably fair to argue that hermeneutical theorists place hermeneutical method in the primary position when dealing with the question of exegetical process. This does not imply that there is 1no recognition of other possible factors and influences, but that such are subject to the controlling influence of adequate method. This may be illustrated as follows: EXEGETICAL PROCESS ——> PREACHING EVENT HERMENEUTICAL METHOD Primary and over other influencing factors, 2.3.1.2 DEALING WITH OTHER INFLUENCING FACTORS On the basis of the acceptance of the primacy of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process, the next assumption is that any other influencing factors in and on exegesis can be dealt with by means of an adequate hermeneutical method, While other influencing factors have been acknowledged in various sources'’, they are not regarded as 'S The reader may refer to, amongst others: Ackermann (1998), Brueggemann (1993), Carson (1996), Conradie (et al 1995), Craffert (1998), Cranmer & Eck (1994), Deist & Burden (1980), Dworkin (1983),35 sufficiently significant to the point of displacing hermeneutical method from the position of primacy. Conradie (et al 1995:21-41) discusses and acknowledges various other factors which may influence the exegetical process, but then moves on to ask where a method can be found that is appropriate for biblical interpretation, In other words, the argument is that while there are acknowledged influencing factors, the way in which they are dealt with is by means of adequate hermeneutical method. In considering the problems faced by ordinary or untrained readers of the Bible, Mesters (1993:16) suggests that these problems ‘... underline the proper and necessary function of scientific exegesis [in other words, guided by adequate hermeneutical method]...” Fiissel (1993:120, italics added), arguing for a materialistic approach to the Bible, tus to method when he suggests that There is a need to avoid two dangers: that of an individualistic, spontaneous biblicism, and that of a completely functional approach to the Bible which looks upon it solely as a source of motivation for political action, A conscious and sustained materialistic reading is therefore compelled, first of all, to be clear about its own limitations, the methods required, and the state of utilizable preliminary work. He then continues to outline an actual method to be utilized in a materialistic approach to the Bible (1993:124-125). This overall assumption may be illustrated as follows: Fee & Stuart (1993), Fish (1980), Forrester (1981), Fassel (1993), Giles (1994), Johnson (1983), Kiogara (1998), Kubatschek (1990), Larkin (1993), Masenya (1999), Mestes (1993), Nincham (1976), Osborne (1991), Punt (1997 & 1998), Silva (1987), Smit (1987), Spivak (1983), Tamez (1989), Thiselton (1980), Ukpong (1995), Vanhoozer (1997) and West (1991 & 1583),36 EXEGETICAL PROCESS HERMENEUTICAL METHOD ‘Controls ant screens these other factors OTHER # INFLUENCING FACTORS 23.1.3 DELIBERATE UTILIZATION OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD ‘The third assumption, which is not immediately noticeable, is that preachers will deliberately ut they prepare for the preaching event. As with many others, Virkler (1981:19) suggests a hermeneutical method or methods in the exegetical process when that ‘... our understanding of what we hear and read is usually spontaneous ... the rules by which we interpret meaning oceur automatically or unconsciously.’ While it may be true that all people interpret by means of certain rules, however they may be acquired and utilized, hermeneutical theorists tend to make two related, though unstated, sub- assumptions: © That preachers will make deliberate use of hermeneutical method or methods. * That even if the method or methods are used automatically or unconsciously, they remain the primary guiding factor in interpretation, So Pieterse (1987:114) reflects such assumptions when addressing the process to be followed in preparing for a sermon, he says that ‘... the main phase is the actual exegesis of the text. We are assuming that the preacher has had sufficient training in the exegetical sciences and will only point out that he should proceed systematically.”u A further example of such assumptions is reflected in Thiselton (1992:1) when he calls his work, New Horizons in Hermeneutics, ‘... an advanced textbook in hermeneutics He then proceeds to reflect an ongoing concern for method and theory in hermeneutics, yet never examines whether his concems as a theorist are shared in the minds and practice of those who are involved in the preaching event on an ongoing and regular basis. In other words, as with most other hermeneutical theorists, Thiselton does not pause to ask whether the concerns of the theorists, i.e. scholars of hermeneutics and exegesis, are the same as those of the practitioners, i.e. the preachers. 2.3.1.4 SUBMISSION TO EXEGETICAL FINDINGS ‘The final assumption that is made, again generally indirectly, is that preachers will in fact submit themselves to the findings of the exegetical process. In terms of the second assumption, that other factors which may influence exegesis may be dealt with by means of an adequate hermeneutical method, it is generally understood that such influencing factors will be addressed and that the preacher will come to a meaningful interpretation of the biblical passage, which they will then accept and proclaim in the preaching event. As such, it is suggested that the other possible influencing factors will not play a decisive role in the preaching event, although it is acknowledged that there may be a degree of influence. Bloesch (1985:81-82, italics added), for example, proposes a christological hermeneutic by which we seek to move beyond historical criticism to be christological, as opposed to the existential, significance of the text... Here the aim is to come to Scripture without any overt presuppositions or at least holding these presuppositions in abeyance so that we can hear God’s Word anew speaking to us in and through the written text. This is an attitude which is added to by Robinson (1980:20-21), who suggests that *... in his approach to a passage, an interpreter must be willing to reexamine his doctrinal convictions and reject the judgements of his most respected teachers. He must make a U-38 turn in his own previous understandings of the Bible should these conflict with the concepts of the biblical writer.’ To which Suggit (1994:77) adds, ‘... readers or hearers ... [must] at all times [be] prepared to examine and reconsider their beliefs and attitudes in response to the text, and not be afraid to change their own understanding accordingly.” 2.3.2. CONSIDERING THE POSSIBLE WEAKNESSES ‘Accepting the preceding arguments and acknowledging that hermeneutical method is regarded as primary in the exegetical process and, by consequence, in the preparation for the preaching event, certain possible weakness in the theoretical approach need to be considered. An overview of the material suggests four main weaknesses: * The plethora of methods * The demand for experts. * The challenge of diversity. © The problem of irrelevance. Attention will be paid to each one of these possible weaknesses in turn, 2.3.2.1 THE PLETHORA OF METHODS With the great emphasis on hermeneutical method, in the context of the massive variety of doctrinal, theological and practical positions, the first inevitable consequence is that of a plethora of methods. Every significant and most insignificant individuals and groups have presented the method or methods that they believe are best suited to the demands of the exegetical process. The critique of this development has become increasingly notable. Addressing New Testament scholarship, Botha (1998:51, italics added) has observed that New methods are nothing new in New Testament scholarship, and the sheer numbers of approaches are daunting to say the least. With shifts in focus on various aspects involved in the communication process, various methodologies have arisen... A New Testament scholar in the last decade39 of the twentieth century is confronted with innumerable methodologies and approaches to choose from ... and each of these methodologies has the same aim: to read and understand the communication of the text a little better. Focusing more specifically on South Africa, Punt (1998:123) points out that It [has been] argued ... that New Testament studies are in South Africa notably characterised by a quest for methods and methodology, regarding the interpretation of texts. In recent years particularly there has been a proliferation of new methods and theories of interpretation, to the extent that it can be called ... methodolomania. Although present elsewhere, the methodological emphasis is particularly noticeable in South African New Testament scholarship. It is arguably true that the same trend and tends are noticeable in Old Testament and Biblical Theology scholarship, in South Africa and beyond. The irony is that in seeking to deal with the plethora of methods, many scholars are simply introducing a new method or methods to the existing variety of methods and methodologies. Botha (1998), in his article, Reading ancient texts more comprehensively: assessing a new methodology, bemoans the plethora of methods, yet goes on to argue that This paper attempts to deal with the problem which faces New Testament scholars in the process of reading and interpreting ancient texts. The point is made that the myriad of methodologies available today makes it very difficult for modern scholars to come to grips with a comprehensive understanding of a text, because the large number of methods available each in its own way is aimed at exploring its own particular aspect of the text. A more comprehensive approach ... has so far been lacking. (Botha 1998:51, italics added), The irony is that Botha falls into the very same trap that he has initially critiqued, as he40 also goes on to present yet another method, so the pool of methods has simply been increased by one. 2.3.2.2 THE DEMAND FOR EXPERTS. Developing on the first argued weakness is the second. If the key to the exegetical process and the preparation for the preaching event is hermeneutical method, then there is the inevitable demand for experts in the theory and practice of hermeneutics. Too often, the unspoken rule is that for an individual to preach properly, they need to be at least basically equipped in the skills of hermeneutical method and the exegetical process. Mesters (1993:9) reflects on Bible study by untrained readers in Brazil: Biblical exegetes, using their heads and their studies, can come fairly close to Abraham; but their feet are a long way from Abraham. The common people are very close to Abraham with their feet. They are living the same sort of situation. Their life-process is of the same nature and they can identify with him. When they read his history in the Bible, it becomes a mirror for them. They look in that mirror, see their own faces, and say: “We are Abraham!” In a real sense they are reading their own history, and this becomes a source of much inspiration and encouragement, One time a farmer said this to me: “Now I get it. We are Abraham, and if he got there then we will too!” From the history of Abraham he and his people are drawing motives for their courage today. Now here is where the danger comes in. Some teacher or learned expert may come along. It might be a pastoral minister, a catechist, or an exegete. This expert may arrive with his or her more learned and sophisticated approach and once again expropriate the gains won by the people. Once again they grow silent and dependent in the presence of the teacher or expert. ‘This example well illustrates how the emphasis on the primacy of hermeneutical method,4a especially as defined by the western and scientific worldview, can be a significant weakness in the lives of many Christian people and Christian communities. 2.3.2.3 THE CHALLENGE OF DIVERSITY The third area of possible weakness lies in the diversity of understanding that arises, not only from the diversity of method, from any hermeneutical and exegetical activity. Together with that diversity comes a large degree of confusion among many Christian people. Stanton (1977:60) asks Why do the conclusions of New Testament [to which may be added Old Testament] scholars differ so widely? Anyone who begins to read books about the New Testament soon becomes aware that competent scholars defend with equal vigour and sincerity widely differing approaches to the New Testament. The variety of viewpoints often causes great perplexity both to theological students and to the church at large. Only the must naive would not regard this problem of diversity as being significant. Itis probably necessary to understand that at least in part the source lies in the diversity of hermeneutical method. Koivisto (1993:155) emphasizes that the diversity of interpretations almost certainly lies in the diversity of interpretive traditions: ‘The diversity among Protestant denominations is due at least in part to the fact that, although all groups subscribe to sola Scriptura, they diverge at a number of points in their interpretation of the Scripture. Those divergences comprise a diversity of interpretive traditions. But, in a sense, one might argue that if there were more common ground in terms of the principles of hermeneutics among all Protestants, then there would be more commonality in terms of understanding the meaning of the text of Scripture, and thus less diversity. It may be argued that Koivisto has oversimplified the situation; however, it is difficult to argue with his suggestion that with greater commonality in hermeneutics and42 hermeneutical method there may be greater commonality in the understanding and interpretation of Scripture. 2.3.2.4 THE PROBLEM OF IRRELEVANCE The final proposed weakness is that of the consequent irrelevance for many people involved in day-to-day Christian life and ministry of the contributions of hermeneutical and exegetical theorists. If the previously considered theoretical assumptions and possible weaknesses are legitimate, then the entire question of the place and role of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process, in the context of the preaching event, demands serious reevaluation, This demand is especially worsened by what may be called the new crisis in hermeneutics, understanding that the crisis may not in fact be new at all, That crisis relates to the general problem summarized by Ukpong (quoted in Punt 1997:125), ‘... there is a “visible gap” between academic and popular biblical interpretation.’ Farris (1997:359) suggests that ‘... there does appear to be a growing divide between biblical expertise and preaching. Surely this divide ought to be of concern to those who care about the integrity of the church's preaching.’ The crisis in theoretical hermeneutics may be described as that of the apparent regard of theoretical hermeneutics as largely irrelevant in relation to the preaching event in the lives of many Christian churches and similar contexts, as well as for many of the people involved in fulltime Christian ministry. Indeed, there appears to be a demand on the preacher which apparently is not considered by the theoretical hermeneuticians; namely, that of the specific demands of preaching in a pastoral context. Farris (1997:359-360) suggests that . it must be noted that most homileticians include in their textbooks a section on exegesis and interpretation of scripture. It does not seem that « writer on preaching can simply say to seminarian or pastor, “Now take what you have learned in Bible courses and use it this way!” Something has to be “done” with the text that is not taught by biblical studies before43 the biblical material can be arranged into a sermon. There is indeed a distance between the disciplines. To this Buttrick (1981:46) adds the following picture Nowadays a minister’s office is worth exploring. On the desk you may find a stack of books - counselling, management, perhaps liberation theology. But on the same desk there are apt to be back issues of a “homily service,” and on shelves there may be commentaries gathering dust. The minister’s office is a symptom. Students drift out of seminaries trained in historical-critical method, practised in homiletical technique, yet at a loss to preach “biblically.” Somehow homiletical practice and exegetical performance do not coordinate. Let us probe the problem: What is the matter with homiletical method? Way does exegesis lapse in parish life? What is the relationship between biblical interpretation and preaching? Overall, it may be said that hermeneutical theory, and perhaps even method, is largely regarded as irrelevant in the day-to-day challenge of preaching in the local church context. 2.3.3 CONSIDERING THE CRITICAL QUESTION Arising out of the basic assumptions of the current theoretical understanding of the significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process, with specific reference to the preaching event, and out of the possible weaknesses that go with the assumptions, the problem at hand may be outlined as follow: that it is assumed that hermeneutical method is the most significant (or primary) factor in the exegesis of the biblical text, notably in the context of the preaching event. Arising from this problem, a critical question needs to be considered. That question can be phrased as follows: What is the relative significance of hermeneutical method in theexegetical process, in the context of the preaching event? However, the question now needs to be answered, not in terms of hermeneutical theory, but by means of deliberate primary research into the experience and practice of those who are involved in the regular preaching event, particularly in a local church setting. And that this research be carried out with due recognition of and for other possible influencing factors in and to the exegetical process. Such research would need te follow the procedure as presented below: 1) An analysis of proposals as to factors, other than hermeneutical method, which may bear on the exegesis of the biblical text. 2) Anexamination of the relative significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process in the preparation for the preaching event. 3) A reflection on the implication of the research findings for the ongoing theory and praxis of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process in the preparation for the preaching event'®. 3. AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN PROPOSALS AS TO FACTORS, OTHER THAN HERMENEUTICAL METHOD, WHICH MAY BEAR ON THE EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT 3.1 HIGHLIGHTING THE ISSUE 3.4.1 THEORY AND PRACTICE Before attention is given to the proposed factors, other than hermeneutical method, which may bear on the exegesis of the biblical text, two points need to be reiterated: . Hermeneutical theorists acknowledge that various factors do influence the exegete 'S A proposal as to anew approach to hermeneutical and exegetical praxis, which gives due consideration to all the factors which have atleast a degree of influence on the exegetical process, will be presented ising out of the above research,45 in the exegetical process. © They further argue that such influencing factors are best addressed through appropriate methods and methodology. In other words, it is necessary to reiterate that the finding of the preceding section was that hermeneutical theorists make the assumption that hermeneutical method is the most significant (or primary) factor in the exegesis of the biblical text. It is this assumption that needs to be examined, by asking whether it is a legitimate conclusion in the context of the preaching event. ‘As consideration is given to this matter, it is important to be reminded of the apparent reality that the biblical exegete and potential preacher is a person found in a context of @ variety of factors which impact and influence, directly and indirectly, their lives and everything that they do. As Thompson (1981a:39) has commented, We bring those presuppositions [and factors] to the interpretation of a biblical text; we cannot avoid them if we want to, Our minds do not constitute a tabula rasa on which can be written the pure Word of God, directly from the text This sentiment and understanding is expressed in many ways in most sources. 3.1.2 PREACHING AND EXEGESIS Focusing on the preaching event and the preached sermon, Gonzalez & Gonzalez (1988:29) have suggested that the meaning of the sermon is determined by the various contexts in which it is preached, for every act of preaching takes place in a series of contexts, Some of these multiple contexts are wider expressions of one another, as, for instance, the series of concentric circles that goes from the local community to the wider community, to the nation, and eventually to the entire globe. Others intersect one another at various levels such as social class, liturgical setting, economic conditions, personal struggles,46 racial prejudice, and denominational traditions. The result is that each act aching takes place within the unique constellation of contexts and of pr -e that constellation changes the more will the meaning of the that the mor sermon itself change, even if itis repeated verbatim, However, t may also be put that these influences do not impact on the sermon alone, but that they play a direct and indirect role on the preceding exegetical process as well tts ndarctaniting by saving that — 28 suggested that those influences can be overcome by the use of the appropriate method and/or methods (see, for example, Deist & Burden 1980 and Fee & Stuart 1993). * Few sourees significantly addressed the possible influence of other factors, while most either briefly addressed the issue or failed to address it at all (most sources ‘appear to take this approach). 2.2.2. EXEGETICAL PROCESS - PREACHING EVENT 22.2.1 THE BASIC RELATIONSHIP Understanding the exegetical process to be that process by which the preacher comes to an understanding of he biblical text in preparation for the preaching event (2.1.2.4, research definition), then the basic relationship between the exegetical process and the preaching event is that the exegetical process is that through which the potential preacher should pass in order to prepare for the preaching event. The reason for this relationship is boosed on the simple premise that all preaching needs to be based on or rooted in the Christian Scriptures or Bible and its Jegitimate meaning. Wilson (1996:139) has commented that ‘... homiletics seeks to render the Word of God in a manner that is faithful to the biblical witness, scholarship, and tradition, yet is specific to our time [there is a concern] with the meaning of the biblical text in its own context and with its meaning for today.” Various other sources affirm this basic relationship as they argue that it is the purpose of4 the time we are old enough to read and understand ... we have stored a great deal of knowledge, formed a great number of opinions, and have been enriched and hurt by a great many relationships. We can focus upon only a tiny fraction of the traditions that have helped to shape us: for example, the way we have observed birthdays and anniversaries - and observe them now; the way we have understood and celebrated Holy Communion - in our childhood and now. Our presuppositions comprise a complex of attitudes, emotions, beliefs, myths, prejudices, ideas, and interests. Bultmann rightly insists that "there cannot be any such thing as presuppositionless exegesis." (Thompson 1981a:39). In other words, every exegete approaches the biblical text with definite presuppositions, which may or may not be acknowledged, and of which the exegete may or may not be aware. As a result, the exegete brings to the text questions that are posed in and choices that are made in the actual exegetical process. Lochhead (1993:135) seeks to address what is referred to as the politics of understanding, and argues that In terms of our analysis of the method of biblical reflection, relations of dominance and submission arise ate every stage. Who selects the text? Why is this text chosen? What interests are reflected in the resources which the group is using? In whose interest is it to read a text the way we do? Why do we analyze our contemporary reality the way we do? Why do we apply the text in one way rather than another? In relation to all our questions we need to ask, whose interest is being served? In such a context and situation, where the potential exegete approaches the text, before actual exegesis, the challenge is to consider what other factors may bear on the exegetical process, and whether hermeneutical method is indeed primary in the process.48 3.2. CONSIDERING CERTAIN PROPOSED FACTORS While there are various ways of approaching the question of factors, other than hermeneutical method (brief attention will again be given to hermeneutical method under Methodological Factors below), that may bear on the exegetical process, this research will use the following seven broad categories of potential influencing factors'”: © Intrapersonal factors. * Spiritual factors. © Community factors. © Contextual factors. © Methodological factors. . Traditional factors. . Academic factors. Each of these potential categories of influencing factors will be examined in turn, 3.2.1. INTRAPERSONAL FACTORS 3.2.1.1 DEFINING INTRAPERSONAL FACTORS The first level of potential influencing factors lie within the person of the exegete, hence the reference to intrapersonal factors. Cranmer & Eck (1994:207-208) have argued that For better or worse, we bring to the text who we are as a person ... and our personal experience interacts with our cognitive beliefs and presuppositions which in tum structure what we are then able to perceive in the text .... Cultural and personal biases, previous experience with the text, personal and spiritual maturity or pathology, and ordinary life experience, all structure and organize our understanding of the text... "7 tris acknowledged that these categories may be subject to debate; however, they do form a meaningful working outline for the purpose of this research. The subsequent actual field research will not be working within the strict parameters of these categories, although they will again serve as a working framework49 This also means that each time a reader approaches the text their intervening experience changes them so that whether one is reading it for the first or fortieth time, there is always a new "truth" to discover. In other words, before anything else, the exegete brings to the text the who and what of their existence as human beings or people. Before any external factors come into play, it appears that intrapersonal factors immediately introduce the possibility of a significant influence in the exegetical process. Expanding on this, Pieterse (1987:109) has proposed that .. the preacher as exegete interprets the text within his own context, As exegete and preacher he has certain presuppositions, which include his view of Scripture, church tradition (Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, ete.), socio-economic background, ideological beliefs (humanism, feminism, black consciousness, etc.), moral norms and the like. Here again the ‘message passes through the filters of an individual context. ‘Therefore, it becomes necessary to consider what elements there may be within the person of the exegete which may bear on the actual exegetical process. Intrapersonal factors may, therefore, be defined as those factors which derive from the person of the exegete and of which the exegete may or may not be aware. In the context of this study, attention will be given to the following intrapersonal factors: * Individual experience © Personal bias. © Specific perspectives. © Reader interests. 3.2.1.1 INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE Every person, by virtue of their being human, has, as a significant part of their personal make-up, the experience and experiences that they have passed through and are passing50 through in their lives. These experiences become a vital factor in their intrapersonal constituency, and they make a significant contribution to their approach to life as a whole. Such experiences include those based on socio-economic conditions, personal gender experiences, significant events, and other developmental moments in the person's life, Ruether (quoted in Sampson 1998:58) has sought to argue that '... [experience is] the starting point and the ending point of the hermeneutical circle ....'_If this is true then personal experience becomes a very significant influencing factor on the exegetical process. A significant example of the experiential influence is that of the experience of women in their day-to-day lives, Tamez (1989:179) has argued that To read the Bible from a woman's perspective, we must read it with women's eyes, that is to say, conscious of the existence of individuals who are cast aside because of their sex ... Women, as victims of sexist oppression, will obviously perceive with less difficulty those aspects [of the biblical text] that directly affect them. Their experiences, their bodies, their social upbringing, their suffering and specific struggles give them keys (insights) to this reading. What Tamez is calling for is a recognition of the potent impact that the experience of women and being a woman has on the reading and interpretation of the biblical message and text, As Masenya (1999:229) grapples with this issue, the following observation needs to be considered, 'I wish to highlight the tensions that arise when a woman reader, who is conscious of her unique experiences as a woman, interacts with the Bible. Such a ‘woman ofien finds herself tossed between two forms of authority: the authority of the Bible and the authority of her own experiences. As with women and their experiences, the demands of experience influence the person of the exegete as they approach the biblical text, Addressing this issue in its broader definition, Sampson (1998:59, italics added) observes that ‘The new understanding of the contextual nature of the biblical text has led51 to a greater emphasis on experience and an acknowledgement that the Bible is interpreted not only on the basis of faith, tradition and reason, but is also determined by the experience of the interpreter. The experiences of those who actively participated in the process which produced the Bible, played a crucial roje in the eventual message which was projected. In the same way, the life situation of the modern reader is what produces ‘meaning today. It appears probable that the influence of experience is a significant factor in the exegetical process of the biblical text 3.2.1.2 PERSONAL BIAS Following from, and perhaps out of experience, comes the potential impact of personal bias on the exegetical process. By bias, reference is being made to what is generally a subconscious influence on the individual, which is most often indirect and unacknowledged by the exegete. In this context, Scholer (1988:9) writes, 'I recognize, I hope fully and honestly, that there is no such thing as a completely objective interpretation of a biblical text. All interpreters do bring to their task their own presuppositions, biases, experiences and misconceptions.’ Addressing, as an example, the question of moral or ethical norms, Deist & Burden (1980:38) seek to demonstrate how experience may shape the bias and biases of the exegete: The exegete also holds certain views as to moral or ethical norms. These norms are derived from various sources. They are inculeated in him throughout his upbringing and education: by his parents, by his teachers at school, by the church to which he belongs, by the society in which he lives, and so on. True, the individual exegete does develop his own set of values; but to some extent he is bound to be conditioned by the society in which he lives. This comes about through the familiar process of social approval and disapproval.‘A further demonstration of the impact of bias, is the all too common tendency amongst biblical exegetes to argue that their interpretation of Scripture is not only correct, but unlike other interpretations is not influenced by their own bias. In his provocative chapter, Confessions of a Bible Deist, Deere (1996:252-253) points to the way in which people who claim to have confidence in the Bible, are actually referring to 4 confidence in their interpretive ability: Although the Bible deist loudly proclaims the sufficiency of Scripture, in reality, he is proclaiming the sufficiency of his own interpretation of the Scripture. Bible deists aren't alone in this error. When many people say they have confidence in the Bible, what they really mean is they have confidence in their ability to interpret the Word, in their own particular understanding of the Bible, in their own theological system. While many respond to such persons with the accusation of arrogance, this is probably better understood to be a reflection of a subconscious bias and surrender to what the person already believes to be the correct interpretation of the biblical text. This is especially noticeable when such exegetes are challenged as to the arrogance with which they present their personal interpretive findings as the only correct interpretation, Kretzschmar (1986:74) goes on to point out certain dangers that accompany the notion of unbiased biblical interpretation, when reference is made to the argument from contextual theology that '... in the very process of reading and "understanding" the Bible we are already interpreting it in our own way. What is more, in our subsequent "application to the situation" we are applying texts that we have selected, to a situation which we have interpreted, according to our own viewpoint.’ Furthermore, the World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission's investigation into ecumenical hermeneutics (1998:94:21), has argued that . the process of hermeneutical reflection reveals the time-bound character of the traditional forms and formulations as well as any ambiguous or vested interests on the part of the interpreters both past and 3 involved in the hermeneutical task do well to present ... Christiinvestigate ... prejudices and presuppositions brought to bear on the interpretation process. It may, therefore, be argued that personal bias does impact on the exegetical process, but generally in an indirect and unconscious manner, which is seldom acknowledged and recognized by the exegete. 3.2.1.3 SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVES While personal bias may be characterized by its generally indirect and unconscious nature, specific perspectives may be characterized by being more deliberate. Padilla (1986:302) suggests that '... interpreters tend to approach Scripture from their particular perspectives. They have their own world-and-life view, their own way of apprehending reality. This imposes certain limits but also enables them to see reality as a coherent whole’. The argument is that interpreters may, and generally do, approach the biblical text from a chosen perspective: ‘Readers also bring to Bible reading perspectives that come from their own personal or group history and experience." (Cranmer & Eck 1994:208). ‘The use of specific perspectives may be illustrated in the following examples. Firstly, there is the deliberately chosen perspective of Europeans and North Americans, who have asked questions that have been shaped by their particular cultural, gender and racial Secondly, the expressed perspective and perspectives of perspectives (Felder 1989: Black theology, that deliberately chooses to utilize the black experience of oppression and exploitation, '... thus the black experience of oppression and exploitation provides the epistemoiogical lens through which to perceive the God of the Bible as the God of liberation.’ (Mosala 1989:15). And thirdly, there is the example of a perspective that chooses a specific emphasis as to the perspective from which to approach and view the Bible; Wielenga (1992:29) expresses one such perspective: 'The mission of the church. This is the context in which the church is called to read, explain, apply and, yes, also live34 out the Bible as the Word of God. It has been mandated to go into the world of today with the Word of God - that is its primary mission.’ Each of the above examples demonstrate how exegetes may approach the biblical text from within a specific perspective, of which they are generally aware and have often deliberately chosen. While it is not the purpose of this research to critique such perspectives, it is reasonable to suggest that these perspectives will impact on the exegetical process as a potentially significant influencing factor. Such is the acknowledgement of the potential significance of specific perspectives, that Yorke (nd:np) has proposed that '... it is now acknowledged that all theology [and with it exegesis] is practised from a certain perspective ....'* Therefore, it would be unwise to disregard specific perspectives as possible influencing factors in the exegetical process. 3.2.1.4 READER INTERESTS ‘The final suggestion as to intrapersonal factors, is that of reader interests. It would be difficult to contest the suggestion that all exegetes carry with them at least some degree of personal interest or interests. Tate (1991:173) has simply suggested that interpreters use texts to fulfill their interests or aims.' In other words, the suggestion is that the exegete will tend to approach the Scriptures and, therefore, also the biblical text with some degree of defined interest. Such interests may vary, but will influence the way in which the exegete approaches the text, and with that the exegetical conclusions being sought and which may or may not be regarded as acceptable. Pinnock (1991:111), in his article on the interpretation of Acts 4:12, demonstrates the potential impact of reader interest on interpretation: Why is it that people read into texts such as Acts 4:12 meanings that are not there? First, it is due to reader interest. Readers cannot be completely "© This statement would be challenged in certain hermeneutical and theological sectors; however, it does still demonstrate a significant understanding regarding the issue under consideration.38 objective when they read texts that tackle issues vitally important to them. ‘They have an interest in the outcome of their interpretation. We do not see reality as it is but through the filters of our interests. Thus, we all come to a text like Acts 4:12 from somewhere, always with presuppositions, and that fact influences the results of our interpretation. ‘A further example of the impact of reader interest and interests may be found in Fiorenza’s comments (1988:104, italics added) regarding the idea of a Woman's Bible, when she argues that while the idea of such a Bible should be rejected, '... biblical scholarship on the whole has proven accurate ... that the Bible must be studied as a human work, and that biblical interpretation is influenced by the theatogical mind set and interests of the interpreter! Another striking example of the potential influence of reader interest is to be found in the manner in which the biblical text is approached by many of those with a particular interest in mission and missions. This approach has been critiqued by Bosch (1993:439) who explains that In other [mission] circles there developed a hermeneutical approach ... [in which] the Bible was used as a mine from which "missionary texts" could be extracted. Most of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, was undoubtedly "particularistic" and therefore hardly usable as a foundation for a world-wide mission. If, however, we searched carefully and persistently among the rocks and rubble we would find small nuggets of real gold - stories of pagans such as Ruth and Naaman, who accepted the faith of Israel, "universalistic" expressions in the Psalms and in Deutero- Isaiah, encounters between Jesus and non-Jews, such as the Roman centurion, etc, Sometimes there are no such clearly visible nuggets of gold; then the ore would have to be melted carefully and the invisible gold meticulously extracted from it via the elaborate process of exegesis. It appears apparent that such strong interests will bear on the exegetical process, and the56 question must be asked as to what the relative significance of such interests is on the exegetical process and how they may impact on a chosen hermeneutical method. 322 SPIRITUAL FACTORS 3.2.2.1 DEFINING SPIRITUAL FACTORS Following on from the intrapersonal factors which may influence the exegetical process, are those factors which may be referred to as spiritual. Deere (1996:257) proposes that The Author of the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. In fact, he is the only reliable interpreter. And if the Spirit's illumination is the key to interpreting the Bible, isn't the Bible deis's confidence in his own interpretive abilities arrogant and foolhardy? How does one persuade God to illumine the Bible? Does God give illumination to the ones who know Hebrew and Greek the best? To the ones who read and memorize Scripture the most? What if the condition of one's heart is more important for understanding the Bible than the abilities of the mind? Is it possible that the illumination of the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture might be given on a basis other than education or mental abilities? In other words, Deere places before the exegete the challenge of the work and role of spiritual factors in the exegetical process."? Deere (1996:261) then takes his observations further by arguing that In principle, we acknowledge that we would never have become Christians apart from the supernatural revelatory ministry of the Holy "The debate around the place and role of a personal Christian commitment is acknowledged; however, the purpose of this section is ta present for esearch proposed factors which may influence the exegetical process. In other words, it isnot the intention ofthis section to evaluate the proposed factors, although appropriate comments may be included.7 “in, Spirit, But now that we are "ia," we seem to think that we progress through intelligence rather than through the revelatory ministry of the Holy Spirit, We seem to think that the Bible can be understood through patient, disciplined, academic study. We presume that because Paul wrote about divine mysteries and because we can read, therefore we can understand these mysteries It is therefore necessary to consider which spiritual factors may be present as an influencing factor or factors in the exegetical process. Spiritual factors may, therefore, be defined as those factors which derive from the spiritual life of the exegete, being understood from the Christian perspective, and which contribute to the exegete's ability to meaningfully exegete the biblical text. In the context of this study, attention will be given to the following spiritual factors: © The illumination of the Holy Spirit. © The dependence on prayer. © The impact of a Christian life. 3.2.2.2 THE ILLUMINATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT Probably the most significant proposed spiritual factor is that of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Kaiser (1997:233) has suggested that it is‘... clear that the ministry and work of the Holy Spirit, in illuminating the hearts and minds of those who hear spiritual truths [referring to 1 Corinthians 2:14], is not to be treated lightly in this whole area of biblical interpretation, especially in the area of the application of those things that are taught in the Bible,’ It is, however, generally not suggested that the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit implies that the exegete is not required to be committed to the study and interpretation of the biblical text, nor that illumination will automatically produce the intended meaning of the text (see for example, Osborne 199134). Rather, the suggestion is that without the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit, the exegete cannot come to the full intention and meaning of the biblical text:58 Without the present illumination of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God must remain a dead letter to every man, no matter how intelligent or how well- educated he may be ... it is just as essential for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of Scripture to the reader today as it was necessary for him to inspire the writers thereof in their day ... in denying the present inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we have made Scripture the province of the letter- leamed scribe. (William Law quoted in Deere, 1996:264) ‘The concem is that the exegetes acknowledge their human limitations and recognize their prior dependence on the illumination of the Holy Spirit in the process of exegesis. While there is a recognition that the biblical text may be interpreted as history and/or literature, the argument is that there are resultant limitations to receiving the greater divinely intended truth and significance of the biblical text, as part of the Christian Scriptures aad as being the Word of God. To this end, Phillips (1999:35) proposes that ‘As we open up the spiritsman to God, the Seriptures become more alive to us. The power of God is released. The Holy Spirit quickens the spirit and anoints us to receive the truth from God's Word. Instead of leaming Scripture as history or literature, the Holy Spirit gives us the capacity to grasp the “things of God” as we read the inspired Word of God, An anointing of understanding comes upon believers ... [as found in 1 John 2:27) The impact of this illumination is further argued by Phillips (1999:35-36) in the following manner the Holy Spirit does not bring new truth, but brings new revelation of the truth already revealed in Scripture as we pray in the Spirit. We are heart-to-heart with God without the filter of our flesh ... This special revelation will cause you to stop in the middle of your reading of a Scripture passage and feel as though a verse is leaping off the page in bold clarity, The verse may seem to come alive to you and speak to you personally and directly.However, it is important to acknowledge that there are exegetes and Christian communities who would argue for the direct illumination of the Holy Spirit in the process of interpreting and applying the biblical text, especially in the preaching event. This is ‘more common in the Pentecostal-type churches, though not exclusively so, as Anderson (1996:174) points out, ‘One presupposition that conditions this hermeneutical approach .. is the emphasis on the experience of the Holy ... in Pentecostal-type AICs, therefore, the experience of the Spirit becomes an essential and perhaps the most important key in the hermeneutical process.’ Wielenga (1992:31) goes on to point out that '... the intuitive approach propagates a direct reading of the biblical text under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is assumed here that there is a direct accessibility to Scripture for the community of faith, a perspicuitas scripturae, An immediate application of the text is made in teaching and preaching or in a devotional context.’ Therefore, while there is a ‘general argument for the prior significance of the illumination of the Holy Spirit in the exegetical process, without invalidating the need for the technical exegetical process, there are those who would argue that the illumination of the Holy Spirit is such that the actual exegetical process is either unnecessary or of distinctly limited value. ‘Additionally, it needs be acknowledged that there are those who would argue against the need for a specific illuminating work by the Holy Spirit, 3.2.2.3 THE DEPENDENCE ON PRAYER The next proposal as to a spiritual factor in the exegetical process is that of a dependence on prayer, While this suggestion was not common through the material studied, it was a the research carried out by Mijoga (1996) and therefore demands significant facto attention. A possible reason for limited specific references to the role of prayer is that it may be assumed in discussions on the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit in the exegetical process. Conradie (et al 1995:11) appear to have made such a assumption, although they do refer specifically to prayer, At first, people often ignore {the problems they encounter in the Bible} . However, more drast measures are sometimes required. The next step60 Christians usually take when interpreting the Bible is that of prayer. The believer may pray fervently to God to speak clearly through the reading and study of the Bible. We may trust the Holy Spirit ever more to lead us “in the full truth”. Mijoga (1996:362) details the findings of research into the hermeneutics in the African Initiated Churches in Malawi, regarding the place of prayer as follows: The general understanding across the board is that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom (Ps 11:10) and this is expressed in their emphasis on prayer, by some respondents, when beginning their exegesis. In African traditional setting, a person's religious life is expressed in the person's prayerful attitude. Prayers are said to thank the supreme being (god, ancestral spirits), praise him, and ask for forgiveness and guidance. For example, when people want to embark on something very important, they had to pray and offer sacrifices. In the issue at stake, God is asked to help in the task of explaining his message to the people, Although the theoretical emphasis on the role of prayer is limited, it appears to be of sufficient importance to be considered in this research. This is especially so as the only accessed research (Mijoga 1996) indicated that it is an important influencing factor. 3.2.2.4 THE IMPACT OF A CHRISTIAN LIFE. ‘The third suggested spiritual factor is that which was alluded to earlier with reference to the question of a personal Christian commitment, However, the concern of this section is with the possible impact of a Christian life on the exegetical process. Weaver (1998:367) has argued that, {ln the minds of many ancient Christians] ... only the heart that was illuminated by the Holy Spirit could gain access to the riches of the text authored by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise the text remained opaque. A related assumption of early Christian exegetes was that although the61 illumination of the Spirit was a gift, that gift required preparation. The heart had to be examined, purified, and rendered receptive to the searching light of grace. By implication, the argument is that the person whose own life is personally committed to faith in Jesus Christ is best able to grasp the meaning of the biblical text, as it is apparent that the Christian alone has received the gift of the Holy Spirit The importance of the potential impact of a Christian life is further emphasized when consideration is given to the exegetical task in the context of the community of Christian believers. The exegete operating outside of such a context (for example, the non- Christian academic environment) does not have a specific Christian demand placed on the exegetical. task and findings. However, exegetes who claim to be operating as Christian believers, immediately place themselves in a broader context that could challenge them on the grounds of a claimed Christian commitment and life, and the understanding that the Holy Spirit is not only active in the life of the exegete, but also in the life of the entire Christian or church community (Craddock 1985:135-136). However, as Virkler (1981:29-30) has pointed out [The issue of spiritual factors] ... is more important to hermeneutics than it might initially seem. On one hand if, as asserted earlier, the meaning of Scripture is to be found in the careful study of words and of the culture and history of its writers, then where do we look to find this added dimension of spiritual insight? If we rely on the spiritual intuitions of fellow believers for added insights we soon end in a hopeless babble of confusion because we no longer have any normative principles for comparing the validity of one intuition with another. On the other hand, the alternative idea that the meaning of Scripture can be found by mastering the prerequisite exegetical knowledge and skills without regard to spititual condition seems to contradict the verses cited above [including 1 Corinthians 2:6-14; Ephesians 4:17-24 & 1 John 2:11]2 ‘A concluding aspect of the potential impact of the Christian life on the exegete is the understanding of a reciprocal process that accompanies the exegetical process; namely, that while the exegete interprets the biblical text, they themselves are exegeted and challenged by the text: "Interpreted Scripture must be alfowed to interpret its interpreters; those who ... stand over it to find its meaning and bearing must recognize that in spiritual terms they stand under it to be judged, corrected, led, and fed by it. Interpretation has to be imperative, self-involving, and thus (to use an abused word) existential in style. (Packer, 1985:43). In this reciprocal process, the exegete moves beyond discovering the meaning of the biblical text alone, moving on to consider and reflect on the impact of that which is exegeted and concluded on their life and person (Packer 1985:43-45), Conradie (et al 1995:20) have sought to summarize this emphasis by arguing that In the Christian tradition the interpretation event is itself regarded in a unique way. The interpretation of the Bible is not simply an event in which people grapple with the meaning, implications or relevance of a particular text to their personal lives ... far more is at stake here. Biblical interpretation is an event during which the Holy Spirit addresses believers personally (the restimonium Spiritus Sancti internum) and leads them to faith. It is also an event during which conversion and sanctification take place, spirituality is exercised, the characters and virtues of believers are formed, good works are performed, charity is shown, stewardship is exercised, wisdom is shared, Christians witness to their faith, missionary work takes place, ete. The process of biblical interpretation therefore includes all aspects traditionally associated with Christian life. In this sense interpretation and faith are similar concepts. Interpretation involves a conversation between God and human beings through the medium of the biblical text. ‘The product of this interaction is called faith.6 3.2.3. COMMUNITY FACTORS 3.2.3.1 DEFINING COMMUNITY FACTORS Having considered those influencing factors which may be described as directly relating to the individual person of the exegete, it is necessary to move on to consider those factors which are linked to the social context within which the exegete finds himself/herself: ‘Owning up to who we are, o our social location, is becoming a constitutive efement of our reading practice as biblical scholars ... Alongside the important question of who we are is the constitutive question of who we read [interpret] with’ (West, 1998a:28). Such factors may be referred to as community and contextual ‘factors. Attention will first be paid to those influencing factors which will be referred to as community factors, As Cranmer & Eck have argued, ‘... one needs to recognize that no interpretation of Scripture is independent from the values and concerns of the group from which it originates.’ In other words, it is necessary for the exegete to acknowledge the community within which they are carrying out the exegetical task, with a special concern for the church community or the community of faith. It has been proposed that "... the Church is called to be an hermeneutical community, that is, a community within which there is a commitment to explore and interpret anew the given texts, symbols and practices.’ (WCC / Faith and Order, 1998:9). The extent of the possible influence of community factors has been expressed by Lundin (etal 1985:x), who has suggested that ‘Anyone who investigates conflicts in interpretation, for example, will discover debates in which the issue is not really the interpretation itself but the nature of the interpreter's goals or the effects of a given interpretation on a community of people who have an interest in the text being interpreted. Bias, acrimony, censorship, and emotional recrimination are perhaps the most evident in religious communities where the meaning of a sacred text has a special importance, but such "ethical," or in many cases64 "moralistic," debates have also colored and complicated hermeneutical debates in academic communities. ‘What is important to note is that while the emphasis of this particular research will be on the context of the Christian community in its various forms, the impact of other communities, notably tle academic community, cannot be discounted.?? Consideration must also be given to the way in which communities tend to directly and indirectly pressurize the individual, including the exegete, into conformity with the community's perspectives and understandings. Osborne (1991:71) addresses the way in which individuals may respond to that community pressure to conform: There have been numerous variants on the 1937 Sherif study, e.g., Solomon Ash, but all of them contributed to our understanding of social conformity. The experimenters concluded that: 1, If the person values the opinion of the group and he or she is made to feel like a deviant, the rate of conformity with the group will be higher. 2. Cohesive groups have a greater chance of getting people to conform to their opinion or judgment. 3. The person's conformity increases with an increase in the degree of ambiguity of the situation, 4. Persons with the low self-esteem are more likely to conform to the group decision. 5. Sometimes there is a marked difference between the person's private opinion about the ambiguous situation and his or her publicly-stated opinion. In addition, Osbome (1991:73) notes that '... some groups allow for a degree of theological diversity in their midst but usually only with ... persons who have won their trust, or with persons who have already gained prestige ... and who [function] well within the bounds of the group norms.’ However, this is arguably the exception rather6 than the rule. Considering the points mentioned above, of particular significance in this research is point 5 above, especially as this research is concerned with the exegetical process in the specific context of the preaching event, which is a public context”! Community factors may, therefore, be defined as those factors which arise in the community context within which the exegete seeks to interpret the biblical text, with the Christian church community being the most influential and prominent, In the context of this study, attention will be given to the following community factors: © The faith of the community. © The expectations of the community. © Theneeds of the community. 3.2,3.2 THE FAITH OF THE COMMUNITY Arguably the single most important potential influencing community factor is that of the actual faith of the community within which the exegete is performing the interpretive function and task. Muller (1991:1868199) has proposed that The unity of the theological task - in fact, the ability to engage productively in the theological task - rests on the intimate and meaningful relationship of the tradition found within the canon of Scripture and the tradition of interpretation, theology, and spirituality, to the believing ‘community of the present and to the individual interpreter as part of that community ... In the contemporary formutation of theology, based as it must be on the findings of the past, the ongoing community of belief occupies a crucial place in the hermeneutical circle, > Further attention will be given to the possible academic influence in the section ‘academic factors." 2 This possibility will be considered in the field research of the following section,Conte this community context wit 66 which the Bible is exegeted and interpreted ... is no ordinary social context. The Word of God is read, interpreted and applied primarily within the church as a community of believers, the body of Christ. A Christian community is that space in which the message of the Bible is heard, obeyed, applied and lived to the full. In this context there is a willingness to listen to the Word of God, to be formed and transformed by the Bible. In such a Christian community factors such as nal liturgies, forms of worship, organizational structures, congreg Projects, leaders, personal friendships, the formation of Christian characters and Christian virtues play an important role and will therefore influence the interpretation of the Bible in that particular context. The way the Bible is read and applied is not determined by’ individual preferences or decisions but by the social conventions of the community within which the Bible is read. ie (et al 1995:19, italics added) argue further that it is important to recognize that ‘However, it must not be assumed that the existence of a Christian community of faith for the exegete produces a commonality and uniformity of biblical understanding and interpretive findings. On the contrary, the very varieties of Christian community and communities have served to present a variety of exegetical results. Although the Bible would generally be accepted as the authoritative Word of God in such communities, The social conventions according to which the Bible is read in different Christian communities may differ dramatically from one another. Consider, for example, the different conventions for appropriate interpretation among Jewish rabbis, medieval monks, protestant fundamentalists or the basic Christian communities in Latin America [However despite] ... these differences, most Christian communities share the same [broad or general] "interpretive interests", namely that the Bible is or should be the source and norm for every conceivable aspect of the life of the community of believers, In such a Christian community the67 interpretation of the Bible does not take place “objectively” but from a deeply felt conviction or faith. (Conradie et al 1995:8). Regardless of this variety, the community of faith and its general demand for conformity remains a potentially significant community factor in the interpretive process. 3.2.3.3 THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY ‘Any community of people, regardless of its composition and nature, has expectations which address a variety of issues and are expressed (or unexpressed) in different ways, but which do impact on the manner in which the community may influence individuals or sub-groups within the community. These expectations, in the context of the exegetical process, may vary from particular interests, theological or not, through to personal or social expectations. Conradie (et al 1995:7-8) suggests that ‘... every interpretive ‘community has particular social conventions that dictate the rules of interpretation within that particular community. Furthermore, divergent "interpretive interests" are served in the interpreting societies’ It is significant that churches of potential pastors and preachers, and pastors and preachers of potential churches do give consideration to the broader theological expectations of the people within the given faith community, It has further been suggested that in the exegetical process, One may also decide to search more systematically for adequate interpretation. It may indeed be impossible to find the very best interpretation, but it is important to continue searching for relatively adequate interpretations. It may also be impossible to escape the power interests of one's own interpretive community but for that very reason one should enter into a conversation with other interpretive communities. (Conradie et al 1995:11, italics added). On the other end of the spectrum is the simple expectation and expectations that may be found within different people in the given community. For example, Liefeld (1984:109) suggests that '... the typical parishioner will bring one simple question to the sermon:68 "What's in it for me?” Crass as that sounds (and is), unless we recognize it, the best expository sermon we can preach may bring great admiration, but will not produce action.’ In the research of Mijoga (1996:363) it was found that The mood of the audience is also very important if the exegete is to sueceed in his/her work. This is why experience is very important, because one knows the background of one's congregants. if this is taken care of, the message will be pertinent to the audience. For example, a message that can be understood by an educated listener will not necessarily be understood in the same way by someone who is lowly educated, This means then that the language used will have to be chosen carefully. On the whole, cultural sensitivity must be considered. Therefore, the exegete will most likely be influenced at some level by the expectations of the community within which they are operating. This expectation needs to be understood as being vast in range: from doctrinal and theological expectations to the expectations that arise from the who of people and their personal expectations in a given context and time. As Tate (1991:167) has simply observed, "The worldview of the interpretive community sets the parameters within which interpretations are accepted or rejected.’ - with suck a worldview and the varieties of worldviews being expressed, directly or indirectly, through the expectations of the community, its sub-groups and individuals within the given context. 4 THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY The third possible community factor is that of the needs of the community which will be addressed, mainly in the preaching event, following on from the exegetical process. In terms of human nature, all people have needs and the question is whether an awareness of such needs will impact on the exegetical process, either negatively or positively: 'Without a thorough knowledge of the congregation's situation the process of understanding is impossible. The preacher must understand and experience his congregation's situation.’9 (Pieterse, 1987:17). The range of needs within a community may vary greatly, as Liefeld (1984:105) has shown that The following are just some of the situations and needs that exist in any congregation: Personal needs (anxiety, loneliness, grief, depression, spiritual dryness, need for guidance, etc.). Corporate moods (economic concerns, discouragement, conflict, lack of enthusiasm in the church, shock over a recent death in the congregation, apprehension over a planned building program, etc.), Current social and ethical issues (among Christians or in the community). Public crises (elections, assassination attempts, international problems, accident in the community, etc.) Spiritual milestones in the life of the church. Spiritual state of special groups (new believers, elderly, youth, those in mid-life crisis, singles, married, divorced, ete.) Ongoing needs for edification and instruction. Arising out of the list suggested by Liefeld, it may be argued that there are two main groups of needs; namely, those that are of a personal and direct nature, and those which are less personal and more general. Of the first, consideration is to be given to the day- to-day experiential needs of people. A particular concem for such needs is seen, for example, in many of the Pentecostal-type African Initiated Churches, of which Anderson (1996:174-175) has observed The attraction of the Pentecostal-type AIC hermeneutics for African people is that probably above all other considerations, these churches are believed to provide biblical answers for "this worldly" needs like sickness, poverty, hunger, oppression, unemployment, loneliness, evil spirits and0 sorcery. Church respondents in Soshanguve [a town in South Africa] told of their healings, deliverance from evil powers, the restoration of broken marriages, success in work or in business ventures and other needs which ‘were met, usually through what was seen as the supernatural intervention, of God through his Spirit, including the use of agents of the Spirit: prophets and other gifted church leaders. All of these experiences were often backed up, either implicitly or explicitly, by scriptural support. The Bible in this way becomes a source book of supernatural answers to human need. Mijoga (1996:363) places such concems in specific context, by outlining a process that may be followed when there is a particular concern for the immediate needs of people: ‘Once one has sought guidance from God in prayer, one considers the occasion on which the message (sermon) is to be delivered. If, for example, it is a funeral service, the texts and songs chosen should be in line with the occasion. Occasion is, therefore, very important in the understanding of the text’ The second group of needs relates to the less personal and more general issues of human existence, which nevertheless impact on the concems and lives of people. Stott (1982:216) refers to these needs as external, defining the term as referring to some event in the life of our nation (e.g. an election, the death of a public figure or a national scandal), some issue of public debate (e.g. the arms race, abortion, capital punishment, unemployment, homosexual practice, or divorce), a natural disaster (flood, famine or earthquake) or some other catastrophe (a plane or train crash). Stott (1982:216) goes on to address the impact of such needs by proposing that When Christian people come to church, they neither can nor should shut out of their minds such matters as these which are being given wide radio, television and newspaper coverage. On the contrary, they bring these anxieties with them to worship, and are asking “is there a word from the Lord?" and "how should Christian people react to such things?" Preachers1 need to be sensitive to the big public questions in people's minds. With the needs of the community being as significant as has been proposed, consideration needs to be given to the degree in which an awareness of such needs may or may not impact on the exegetical process. 3.2.4 CONTEXTUAL FACTORS 1 DEFINING CONTEXTUAL FACTORS While community factors were concerned with the impact of the narrower community within which the exegete is operating, contextual factors seek to address the broader context within which the exegete is operating. This may be illustrated as follows: Hindson (1984:33) has sought to argue that '... the social, economic, political and other contexts of texts as Well as of interpreters have an important bearing on the "meaning" of [biblical] texts. Any interpreter should be conscious of this fact and inculcate it into his pronouncements on the "meaning" of the text! In considering contextual factors, the concerns of, amongst others, inculturation hermeneutics are taken into consideration, in whichn The focus of inculturation hermeneutic is on the reader/interpreter and his/her context in relation to the text and its context ... [the] "reader" is to be understood as "reader-in-context” that is, reader who consciously takes his/her socio-cultural context as a point of departure in the reading, and who is part and parcel of the Christian community whose world-view and life experience he/she shares. (Ukpong 19955), An example of this emphasis is the Kairos Document (Kairos Theologians 1986), where the preface (1986:np) declares The KAIROS Document is a Christian, biblical and theological comment on the political crisis in South Africa today. It is an attempt by concerned Christians in South Africa to reflect on the situation of death in our country. It is a critique of the current theological models that determine the type of activities the Church engages in to try to resolve the problems of the country. It is an attempt to develop, out of this perplexing situation, an alternative biblical and theological model that will in tum lead to forms of activity that will make a real difference to the future of our country. Contextual factors may, therefore, be defined as those factors which derive from the cultural and social context which may impact on the exegete in varying degrees and ways, In the context of this study, attention will be given to the following contextual factors: . Cultural context™, * Social realities. 2 1 is acknowledged that "culture" is @ multi-interpreted concept, and itis necessary (o seek an understanding of what... [culture refers] to. While no definitive response is possible... it appears that calture refers to the dynamic experiential context of people which is comprehensible to and understood by them, especially with reference to historical ethnicity. In other words, it is the experiential frame of reference of people, which is bound to vary by context, situation and history.’ (de Jongh 1996:20)B 3.2.4.2 CULTURAL CONTEXT The first possible contextual factor is the cultural context within which the exegete is found. In the book, Constructing Local Theologies, Schreiter (1985) has demonstrated how cultural and contextual issues have impacted on theology and theologies. Consequently, it may be similarly argued that cultural and contextual issues have impacted and impact on the exegetical process. Padilla (1986:301) has argued that Interpreters do not live in a vacuum. They live in concrete historical situations, in particular cultures. From their cultures they derive not only their language but also patterns of thought and conduct, methods of earning, emotional reactions, values, interests, and goals. if God's Word is to reach them, it must do so in their own culture or not at all. In addition it is probable that '... an interpreter's work is always affected by human foibles and fallibility. ... Cultural factors are ... important; the interpreter may be so conditioned by his environment that he is almost automatically biased in one direction or else he is quite unable to consider all the alternative approaches.’ (Stanton, 1977:61). In the light of the differences between and varieties of cultures, the impact of culture can and most often does result in differences in interpretation or at least in the application of the interpreted biblical text. In contrasting Latin Americans and North Americans, as broad cultural groups, Gudorf (1987:5-6) argues that For Latin Americans, Scripture is aimed at groups and has collective meaning. Personal messages abound within the collective meaning ... In North America scholarship is given more weight: Often the task of the group, if it moves beyond individual message sharing, becomes learning the interpretations of the experts. Latin Americans do not reject biblical scholarship when it is available, but neither do they give it center stage. ‘The emphasis is not on the meaning of the text in itself but on its meaning for its readers, The potential impact of such interests cannot be underestimated, especially when" consideration is given to the sub- and sub-sub-cultural varieties found within the two regions themselves, and then to cultural varieties worldwide. ‘A further complication arises when attention is given to the varieties of cultural context and influence within the Scriptures, and then application into the varieties of culture in the contemporary world with its cultural context. Addressing Old Testament scholarship and the South African setting, Oosthuizen suggests that Old Testament scholarship is in need of a contextual approach that takes cognisance of the cultures of the different peoples in South Aftica. That would require that the worldviews informing these cultures be taken seriously and that an attempt be made to appreciate the importance of their function within the South African context, also for the interpretation of the Old Testament Consequently, the impact of cultural context is most often similar to a two-edged sword, with the cultural contexts of the biblical texts demanding attention, as well as the cultural contexts, general and specific, within which the exegete is found. However, in this research the emphasis will fall on the cultural context within which the exegete finds himself/herself in the present day”, 3.2.4.3 SOCIAL REALITIES The second possible contextual factor is that of the social realities of the context within, which the exegete is carrying out the exegetical task. It may be argued that various social realities exist within a single culture; for example, the rich and the poor within a given tribal or social setting. The danger is that, in addressing such a situation, attention is not given to the varieties of social reality and realities found within the cultural grouping. Such social realities often are expressed as social needs, and the challenge lies therein ® Readers interested in addressing the cultural context of the biblical text may refer to, among other Conradie et al (1995), Deist & Burden (1980), Kaiser & Silva (1994), Larkin (1993), Osborne (1991), Ricoeur (1981), Smit (1987), Tate (1991), Thiselton (1980 & 1992), and Virkler (1981)5 that ‘... at all times the church reflects the economic, political, social, and personal aspirations of its people. Many times the Bible is adapted to these multifaceted human needs.’ (Osborne, 1991:78).* Furthermore, the exegete personally '... belongs to a particular socio-economic level or "stratum" of society. That membership of such a "stratum" has a decisive influence on the exegete's outlook on life is clear from the fact that the theology of revolution is subscribed to by certain groups of people, but rejected by others.’ (Deist & Burden, 1980:37). While Thiselton (1992:12) points out that '... Habermas and Apel ... argue that given social interests and not merely bare, finite contextual contingencies, lie behind different actualizations of texts or of the truth.' Perhaps the greatest potential impact of social realities lies in that they can strongly influence the questions that are put to the biblical text by the exegete. Gudorf (1987:7-8) seeks to illustrate this phenomenon by comparing the types of questions posed by Latin Americans in contrast to North Americans: A ... difference in [social] context [impacts on] the degree of critical reflection on reality present. The experience of widespread poverty, of the poverty of many side by side with the great wealth of the few, causes many Latin Americans to question: Why such great inequality? How did it arise? Why does it not change? What forces maintain this situation? Such questions, which cannot be failed to be asked amid such misery, make clear why Scripture study takes the form it does for Latin Americans = a source for ascertaining God's will for society, his judgment on such misery. North Americans, on the other hand, are not accustomed to such critical reflection on their social reality, precisely because this reality is, for the vast majority, comfortable. Our critical impulses are channeled into questions of personal meaning and relationships. Because we take our social reality more or less for granted, we are often oblivious fo the social questioning present in Scripture. In the context of such differences in social experiences and realities, it is generally * itis acknowledged that there are those who would dispute this suggestion,16 difficult for the exegete to avoid being impacted on by the social realities of their particular context, and be unaware of or deliberately ignore the issues and questions of other social contexts and realities. Tamez (1989:173-174, italics added), in considering developments in Latin American liberation theology cannot avoid referring to the impact social realities have had on the way in which the Bible has bem and is being read: ‘A reading of the Scripture that truly liberates responds to the situation that has motivated the reading. It seems that, in a context of hunger, unemployment, repression, and war, creativity more than abounds in theology, hermeneutics, liturgy, and the pastoral field. At least this has been our experience. Both Catholic and Protestant grass-roots communities provide clear examples of the ways in which the Bible has been and still is being rediscovered. The study, discussion, and meditation based on the Word has become an integral part of the meetings of the Catholic grass-roots communities. Everybody studies and discusses the Bible from the point of view of liberation. In the progressive Protestant communities, where the Bible has always been fundamental to the liturgy, hermeneutic keys have changed and the Bible has come to be read from the perspective of the poor. In both communities the Bible has been rediscovered. Characteristically, their readings are strongly linked to the daily life of the members of these Christian communities. The same has been suggested regarding the development of Black Theology in South Africa, of which Kretzschmar (1986:75)"* has argued, ‘Black Theology ... begins its theological reflection within the framework The reader should note that this argument was set prior to the new political dispensation in South A‘rica, and one ofthe great current challenges facing Black Theology in South Afftica is, Where to now that things have changed politically?” of its understanding of the situation of blacks in South Africa. Then, on the basis of this understanding, it calls for a liberation of the poor and oppressed. It is thus the exploitative situation and the need for liberation that the starting point for their theological reflection.’ Ultimately, it would appear that the exegete would, on the one hand, be influenced to at least some degree by the social realities in their setting; and, on the other hand, have to pay serious attention to social realities in their setting and beyond. 3.2.5 METHODOLOGICAL FACTORS 3.2.5.1 DEFINING METHODOLOGICAL FACTORS In considering methodological factors as potential influencing factors on the exegete, reference is being made to those factors that relate to hermeneutical method and the exegete's view of the material which they are to exegete. In a consideration of possible influencing factors, it must always be remembered that differences in method and methodology alone cannot explain the differences in the exegesis of the biblical text, and the consequent exegetical findings. This is particularly noticeable when exegetes who claim to use the same hermeneutical method produce different exegetical findings and conclusions. Therefore, while it is important to consider methodological factors, these alone do not answer to the challenge of differences in exegetical results. Methodological factors may, therefore, be defined as those factors which shape the manner in which the exegetical process is carried ou, and which may be either deliberate or indirect influences on the exegete. In the context of this study, attention will be given to the following methodological factors: + Hermeneutical method. * View of the Bible8 3.2.5.2 HERMENEUTICAL METHOD As hermeneutical method, in the context of this study, has already been considered, only very brief attention will be given to method in this section.* ‘Tate (1991:205) has remarked that ‘A hermeneut must use some method or a composite of several methods. There is no alternative in this matter; interpretation is based upon method. In many cases, however, the interpreter may be unable to articulate the method. Most often such inability produces haphazard, inconsistent results, The defense against such results, of course, is to examine the labyrinth of available methods and the to choose one or a mixture of methods . The general thesis of most hermeneutical theorists is that hermeneutical method is of primary significance in the exegetical process,” and the influence of hermeneutical method will be considered in the context of the other factors proposed for consideration in this research. 3.2.5.3 VIEW OF THE BIBLE The second factor to be considered under methodological factors is that of the exegete' view of the Bible. Thiselton (1980-85) has argued for the significance of the exegete's view of the Bible by suggesting that '... in Germany and America, more frequently than in England, questions about New Testament hermeneutics may be related to an explicitly theological doctrine of the Word of God.'. In considering the nature of the Bible, it is important to recognize that the way in which exegetes view the Bible varies considerably, from a very rigid divine view to that of an approach that sees the Bible as no more than % Readers are once again rerainded that it is not the purpose of this study to present the options and range ‘of methods, nor is it intended to consider and present a critique of proposed methods. ® Refer to observations in 2.3 Considering implications, noting especially 2.3.1.1 & 2.3.39 another work of literature to be studied, To appreciate how such views may bear on exegesis, consideration may be given to the following observations, Fackre (1985:20) points to the view that may be typified by the phrase, "But the Bible says ...!" With the Book held high, the televangelist assures the multitudes that its truth comes from the mouth of God through the pen of the writer to the eye and ear of the believer, The Scriptures are the oracles of God’ On the other end of the scale is the view that regards the Bible as a simple human document, with certain issues needing to be dealt with; as Pinnock (1985:20) has argued: Itis obvious that if the Bible is handled as a merely human document, then its claims may be accepted or rejected, its (eachings may be in agreement or disagreement with each other, its subject may or may not be found relevant to our belief today. ‘The advantage is that we are left free to follow our own light and opinion; the disadvantage, that we are left with no divine Word to guide us. Within this range are many varieties of views of the Bible. Pinnock (1985:18) outlines his view of the Bible as follows: E.J. Camell defined Protestant orthodoxy as "that branch of Christendom which limits the ground of religious authority to the Bible." This major theological pre-understanding underlies my own approach to and use of the Bible, It means that the Bible is the one and only normative pole of theological information and that the claims of tradition or modernity possess no inner-theological relevance. I understand my task to be an explication of the deposit of faith in the Bible leading on to a serious attempt to communicate it in a relevant way to the people of my generation. The quest for relevance, important in itself, can never assume the influential role which only the Bible should have. Other important views are found in examples such as within Feminist Hermeneutics, See Fackre (1985:119), Hartin (1991:2), Packer (1983:333 & 1985:37), Pinnock (1985:21-22), Ukpong (1995:9) and Wielenga (1992:28)80 where the question of scriptural authority is central to all discussions on Feminist Hermeneutics. To begin with, certain feminist theologians have found the Scriptures to be irredeemably male-centred. For them , its language and origins in the patriarchal culture of antiquity and the way it has been used down the centuries to discriminate against women, rob its authoritative authority for women. Women who share this view have However, feminist scholars who work moved away from Christianity within the Christian tradition find themselves in an ambivalent situation On the one hand, the Bible is undoubtedly a male-inspired document which holds patriarchal views, and on the other hand, it also serves as an inspiring and authoritative text for women trying to liberate themselves from patriarchal views and structures. Where does its authority lie for women in this situation? (Ackermann, 1998:351). In considering these expressed view of the Bible, it becomes apparent that whichever view is held, it has at least a degree of impact on the exegetical process, which may be typified as follows:”? ghd (Too?) Highly respected as the Word Respected as highly respected as the Word of God human literature of God Very litte, iFany “Acknowledged need for the | (Generally) acknowledged need for a deliberate exegetical process need for the exegetical process exegetical process ‘Ask very few, if any, ‘Ask the ‘Ask any questions questions of the text necessary questions of the text of the text Pick the Bible up Study the Bible ‘Study the Bibie and preach it! and preach and do with the findings the findings, whatever you choose to. * It is acknowledged that this typifving of the positions is stereotypical, but it does serve to illustrate the potential impact on the exegetical process.81 In the light of the preceding observations, it appears apparent that the manner in which the exegete views the Bible will bear on the exegetical process, Therefore, a consideration of the view of the Bible will be included in the further research in this study. 3.2.6 TRADITIONAL FACTORS 3.2.6.1 DEFINING TRADITIONAL FACTORS Further to the possible influencing factors that have already been considered, are those factors which may be broadly classified as traditional factors. Conradie (et al 1995:25) has argued that .. the tradition of interpretation in which one finds oneself will also have a major impact on the interpretation of the Bible. We cannot read the Bible but through the spectacles of the Christian tradition stretching across the twenty centuries of church history. We are not the first people who are trying to discover the meaning and relevance of the Bible for ourselves. A long tradition of interpretation has preceded our current attempts. In considering those factors which may impact on the exegetical process and which derive from tradition, there are arguably two main influences; namely, that of the church tradition within which the exegete stands” and, secondly, the traditional way or ways in which a given biblical text has been interpreted. Gonzélez & Gonzélez (1988:39) have suggested that a '... context that cannot be ignored is the theologicat upbringing that is a part of our heritage and of the heritage of most of the congregations in which preaching takes place.’ To illustrate the difference in impact of these two facets of the traditional influence, consideration may be given to the illustration below: 2°-The readers should note that emphasis in this section is the impact of the specific church tradition as an historically influenced factor; whereas the consideration of the faith of the community (section 3.2.3.2) is focused on the current position of the given Christian community82 Specific church tradition Traditional interpretationts of the text In other words, the church tradition within which the exegete stands is a very specific potential influencing factor; while the traditional interpretation and interpretations of the text may be Varied and not all carry equal influencing weight on the exegete. Traditional factors may, therefore, be defined as those factors which arise out of the historical context within which the exegete stands at the time of effecting the exegetical process. In the context of this study, attention will be given to the following traditional factors: © Specific church tradition, * Traditional interpretation of the text. 3.2.6.2 SPECIFIC CHURCH TRADITION ‘The first potential traditional influence is that of the specific church tradition within which the exegete stands These church traditions are generally expressed in the creeds and doctrinal statements that may be presented and accepted from time-to-time through the course of history, although they may also be implied and presumed, but not expressed in any formal manner, Deist & Burden (1980:35) have suggested that the exegete --, operates Within a particular ecclesiastical tradition, This tradition does of course have its links with other ecclesiastical traditions, yet is distinct from them. Any ecclesiastical tradition is inclined to be rather exclusive. That is, it is maintained to the exclusion of points of view other than its own. The result is that a given text or reli jous pheriomenon is viewed83 with a certain prejudice. Stanton (1977:62) affirms the impact of the church tradition, by further arguing that A brief perusal of the history of the interpretation of Scripture is sufficient, to confirm that the classical creeds of Christendom and particutar doctrinal presuppositions have exercised a profound influence on interpretation right up to the present day. Interpretation of the Bible has often involved little more than production of proof texts to support an already existing doctrinal framework. While Stanton has spoken of the classical creeds of Christendom and particular doctrinal presuppositions, it is necessary to suggest that the ones that most influence the exegete are those that have their origins within the specific church tradition in which they stand at the time. Muller (1991200) points to a dynamic process that unfolds under the influence of the specific church tradition: The historical creeds and confessions of the church not only offer crucial indications of the way in which the text lays claim on the life and thought, of the community, they also provide pathways back into the text from the present, By asking ... how the text has led the community of belief to particular credal and confessional conclusions, we open the text on a different level to our own theological concerns, The larger interpretive task, therefore, includes ... the movement through the theological and spiritual heritage of the community of belief into the present and, then, back again into the text. However, as much as the specific church tradition may influence the exegesis of the biblical text, it has also introduced the additional element of actual interpretation of the creeds, which also influences subsequent interpretation of the biblical text: ‘The creeds ... stimulated different interpretations. The differences of opinion were no longer based only on various interpretations of the core gospel or Bible, but also on a variety of interpretations of the creeds.’ (Conradie et al 1995:27).84 The impact of a specific church tradition and understanding at a given time has been illustrated by Osborne (1991:75-76) who refers to the work of Douglas in this regard: Robert Douglas illustrates how individuals have been pressured to conform to an interpretive view ofa denomination. He documents the fact that during the 1960s the unofficial hierarchy within the Church of Christ sought to silence persons who expressed contrary views on social issues, such as civil rights. In an ecclesiastical system that espouses a congregational form of government, Douglas points out that; 1. There is an unofficial extracongregational hierarchy of prestigious preachers, editors, and college administrators who shape opinion and interpretation of Scripture within the system. Similar "old-boy networks" or informal power structures are evident throughout the fabric of other church systems. 2. The opinion of this unofficial hierarchy prevailed in areas of social commentary. Their views on social issues reflected a right-wing, political doctrine rather than an honest scriptural exegesis. 3. The contribution of this power system was to facilitate "doctrinal cohesion, social pronouncement and the expression of a definite sense of denominational identity and worth.” {In considering the potential impact of the exegete's specific church tradition, mention needs to be made of the way in which the exegete may respond in the event of a non- orthodox"' interpretation. Addressing the problem faced by the exegete who begins to doubt or re-evaluate their currently orthodox convictions, Osborne (1991:74) suggests that the exegete is faced with four main options, none of which can nor should ever be taken lightly by the exegete: When [a] dissenter begins to doubt his or her orthodox, theological convictions, what are the options? There are at least four: 1. He or she ™ Orthodox is here used to refer to that which would be accepted and acceptable within the given church tradition.85 can sell out to the group for fear of rejection. 2. He or she can allow the group to persuade him or her to change a belief despite a personal view to the contrary. 3, He or she can maintain a private conviction while publicly espousing the orthodox belief. 4. He or she can publicly affirm his or her "unorthodox" conviction and sever the relationship with the group. The potential influence of the specific church tradition on the exegete can be enormous, especially if they find themselves moving towards a non-orthodox interpretation of the biblical text. 3 TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT This possible influence relates to the way in which the exegete may be influenced by the traditional way or ways in which a given text has been interpreted and understood in the past. Craddock (1985:135) has argued of the exegetical process that '... the interpreter is not staring at the text across twenty centuries of silence, but is receiving the text from a church that brings generations of efforts at understanding the Scripture. These predecessors are friends and associates in the task. The image of one person sitting alone is both unreal and undesirable.’ To this explanation may be added the statement by Packer (1985:45) who simply says, '... I theologize in constant dialogue with the whole Christian heritage of study, proclamation, and belief insofar as I can acquaint myself with it! The traditional interpretation of the biblical text serves as a necessary input to the exegetical process, because only the most arrogant of interpreters would claim to have no need to consider the interpretations and understandings of the past. However, the problem that is often forthcoming in many exegetes is that It is all too easy to read the traditional interpretations we have received from others into the text of Scripture, Then we may unwittingly transfer the authority of Scripture to our traditional interpretations and invest them86 with a false, even idolatrous, degree of certainty. Because traditions are reshaped as they are passed on, after a while we may drift far from God's Word while still insisting all our theological opinions are "biblical" and therefore true. If we are in such a state we study the Bible uncritically, more than likely it will simply reinforce our errors. (Carson, 1996:17). This impact is often aggravated by the specific church tradition within which the exegete is standing: ‘The acknowledgement of the role of tradition in [the interpretation of Scripture] ... is captured in an observation from a Faith and Order Study of the WCC. After twenty-five years of research and colloquy on the authority of the Bible in the churches, a participant noted, "The biblical texts can never be interpreted ab ovo; interpretation is always conditioned by the tradition in which the interpreter stands." (Fackre, 1985:209) Furthermore, there is the great danger that the exegete who chooses to stand strongly in the tradition of interpretations of the past may develop a false sense of being right. In critiquing the Bible deist, Deere (1996:253) has argued that such a person believes .- [believes that he] has a good theological framework, and his [or her] interpretations are consistent with his theological framework. He stands squarely in a tradition that is hundreds of years old and has many illustrious names within it. With that tradition behind him, plus his own personal skills and abilities, he is sure that he is right. Oh, there are times, when he can admit the possibility of being wrong - for humility's sake, or better, for the appearance of humility. Otherwise, he might give some people the impression that he thinks he is infallible. But in his heart of hearts he know there is only the minutest possibility he might be wrong in any of his individual interpretations.87 3.2.7. ACADEMIC FACTORS 3.2.7.1 DEFINING ACADEMIC FACTORS The final category of proposed influencing factors are those which may be classified under the heading academic factors. Reference is here being made to the manner in which the exegete may be influenced by the academic environment of the day. That environment may vary, but does have some level of impact on the exegete. However, it is notable that very few of the references consulted in this research made reference to such potential factors. ‘The reason for this is unclear, but it may be suggested that those who are involved in and with the broader academic environment are not as aware of their potential impact on the exegetical process as they should be. For this reason, specific references are very limited in this section, and the section relies largely on the researcher's own concepts and ideas at this stage.” However, it would seem apparent that the contemporary exegete, especially where they have been theologically trained, would consider the position of contemporary academics with some degree of respect and perhaps even unhealthy admiration, Broadly speaking, there are a variety of sources for the academic influence, which could include: literary sources, such as commentaries and other theological works; institutional sources, such as respected universities and theofogical forums; and personal sources, such as people highly regarded by or influential in the life of the exegete. Each of these sources may contribute to the manner in which the exegete approaches the exegetical task and may influence the findings that may be produced, Academic factors may, therefore, be defined as those factors which arise out of contexts which are either regarded as learned or as respected in relation to an understanding of the biblical text. In the context of this study, attention will be given to the following * However, the researcher hopes to reflect further on this potential impact through the field research and subsequent reflections.88 academic factors: © Current academic understandings. © Respected person/s understanding. 3.2.7.2 CURRENT ACADEMIC UNDERSTANDINGS Academic understandings of the meaning of the Bible and of specific biblical texts make a definite contribution to the exegesis of the biblical text in the broader sphere of biblical interpretation and also on those in Christian ministry who are required to exegete the biblical text on a relatively regular basis. As a result, almost every biblical exegete is impacted upon by the current academic understandings to some degree. The nature of that impact may, firstly, be direct through: being a student in such an environment, being under the teaching of such persons, or through consultation with academics. Secondly, the impact may be indirect through: the use of commentaries and other theological materials, exposure to audio and video cassette material, or other forms of media including the intemet. In other words, most people fall under a degree of influence from the broader academic setting, even if it be indirectly. However, there are those who operate within an academic environment. Here too there are various influences that arise out of the environment, Conradie (et al 1995:8) argue that Within an academic environment, in contrast to religious communities, the interpretation of the Bible takes place with a totally different set of "interpretive interests" in mind. The social conventions in an academic environment demand that interpretations should be "interesting" or "creative". Interpretations should also be the product of objective, scientific research that does not necessarily reflect religious or social assumptions. The result of these interpretations need not be imbedded in the life of the church but should perhaps comply with the policies of particular professional theological schools, universities, conferences,89 editorial boards or journals. There are many competitive academic "guilds", each with a group of "initiates", a very specialized language, authoritative texts, power structures, social conventions, taboos, etc The skills, customs and attitudes expected of initiates within these groups differ dramatically from the expectations within religious communities. The problem that arises in such contexts is that the exegete may be pressured to conform to the academic understanding of the day, and may lose confidence in their personal ability to study and exegete the text in their own right. 3.2.7.3 RESPECTED PERSON/S UNDERSTANDING The second area requiring consideration is that of the potential influence of a respected person or persons on the exegetical process. ‘There are arguably two groups of respected persons; namely, those who are respected for their perceived ability and skills, and those respected for who they are as people and/or as Christians. In the first group, reference may be made to specific people who have come to be highly regarded for the manner in which they are seen to interpret and apply the biblical text, and/or for what is regarded as a sound theological position. Often, exegetes then access as much of these people's works as possible and utilize these works as the standard by which all exegesis and exegetical findings are measured. Such persons are often identified when they regularly use the phrase, But person X says .... Rather than access varieties of sources and aids, such exegetes come to believe that everything that is needed to be known may be found in the understanding of one or a small group of such respected persons. ‘The other group of respected people are those who are regarded because of their personal lives and their Christian commitment, The danger with such a position is that the character and lives of people are no guarantee of rightness in the matters of exegesis and interpretation, While such persons may have a sound understanding of Christian doctrine and theology, it does not mean by consequence that their understanding and90 understandings of the biblical text are sound; therefore the impact of people on the exegete should never be disregarded. 3.3. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS Ithas been argued in section 2 that one of the fundamental assumptions of hermeneutical theory is that hermeneutical method is the most significant (or primary) factor in the exegesis of the biblical text, in the context of the preaching event. Following on that, attention has been given in section 3 to factors, other than hermeneutical method, which may bear on the exegesis of the biblical text; these factors were grouped as follows: intrapersonal, spiritual, community, contextual, methodological, traditional, and academic. In the considering of other factors, it is apparent that to regard hermeneutical method as ‘most significant or primary in the exegetical process is a tenuous and largely untested hypothesis. It is apparent that serious consideration needs to be given to the relative significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process, and that such a consideration be effected with reference to other possible influencing factors. In the light of this requirement, attention will now be directed to field research into the place and significance of hermeneutical method in the exegesis of the biblical text, in the context of the preaching event; and such research will be carried out with reference to other proposed potential influencing factors 4. ANEXAMINATION OF THE RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD FOR BAPTIST PASTORS IN THE EXEGETICAL PROCESS IN THE PREPARATION FOR THE PREACHING EVENT Having considered the current theoretical understanding of the significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process (section 2) and also an analysis ofa proposals as to factors, other than hermeneutical method, which may bear on the exegesis of the biblical text (section 3), it is now necessary to carry out an examination of the relative significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process. This, examination will be carried out in the context of the preparation for the preaching event; a parameter which will make a focused consideration of the issue possible. The research will be carried out as outlined in this section, and will form the basis for the proposals that will follow. 4.1 | THE STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH For the research process, Gibson & Mitchell (1981:391-394) have proposed seven main. steps, as follows: a. Identify the research problem. b. Review and survey previous research and relevant literature. ¢. Identify the nature of information required and formulate the research problem. d. Determine the kinds of information required to draw sound conclusions, e. Determine the appropriate procedures for collecting and analyzing the data, f, The actual collection of the data. g. Systematically organize and analyze the accumulated data, Another proposal (University of Stellenbosch, 1989:1) suggests eight stages: Statement of the problem. a. b. Literature study. c. Statement of the hypothesis”. d. Research design. ©. Collection of data £ Analysis of data, g. Interpretation and explanation of results. Stages 'b' and ‘c' may vary in order or be presented as one stage.9 h. Reporting of the research. Utilizing the framework of the above proposals, this research will deal with the following stages: Problem statement. Literature study. Research hypothesis. se ao Research design, Data collection. Data analysis. Data interpretation. rm me Research conclusions, 4.2. THE BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH 4.2.1 THE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM For the purposes of this research, the problem is that which is presented by the theoretical argument for the priority of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process. This is based on the conclusion that was drawn in section 2.3.3 where it was argued that in terms of the current theoretical understanding of the significance of hermeneutical method, in the context of the preaching event, the problem is that it is assumed that hermeneutical method is the most significant (or primary) factor in the exegesis of the biblical text, in the context of the preaching event. It was proposed that this assumed the following™: * That hermeneutical method is the most significant or primary factor in the exegetical process. © That other influencing factors may be adequately dealt with by means of an adequate hermeneutical method © That all exegetes defiberately choose and utilize a hermeneutical method or Refer to 2.3.19% methods, and that these guide the exegetical process. © That the exegete will in fact submit themselves to the findings presented by the use of a given hermeneutical method or methods. Furthermore, the following four possible weaknesses were suggested™* © That while the primacy of hermeneutical method was argued for, there was a plethora of methods from which the potential exegete could choose. © That the argued primacy of hermeneutical method tended to lead to a resultant demand for experts in the field of hermeneutics and in the meaningful exegesis of the given biblical text. © That while hermeneutical method was arguable primary, it did not appear to help with the challenges of diversities of understanding resulting from the exegetical process and task © The suggestion does not address the apparent irrelevance of hermeneutical theory for many of the people involved in day-to-day Christian life and ministry. In the light of these proposed assumptions and weaknesses, the problem that needs to be addressed is that of whether the theoretical argument for the primacy of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process is indeed correct in the context of the preaching event, and in the context of those men and women who are involved in day-to-day Christian ministry and regular preaching, 4.2.2 THE STUDY OF RELEVANT LITERATURE While a shorter report on research would have a basic overview of the relevant literature specifically presented in this section, this research has presented the relevant literature study in the following sections of this research; namely: 1. Introduction. % Refer to 2.3.294 2. A consideration of certain current theoretical understanding of the significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process. 3. An analysis of certain proposals as ¢o factors, other than hermeneutical method, which may bear on the exegesis of the biblical text. Consequently, the reader is to refer back to these sections whenever necessary. 43 THE HYPOTHESIS FOR THE RESEARCH The basis for this research is the conclusion of many hermeneutical theorists, that hermeneutical method is the most significant (or primary) factor in the exegesis of the biblical text, in the context of the preaching event. As this is the assumption and conclusion that is to be examined, the research hypothesis will be positively stated as follows: Hermeneutical method or methods are the most significant factor in the exegesis of the biblical text, in the context of the preaching event. The research will, therefore, seek to examine the significance of hermeneutical method in the context of other proposed influencing factors. In testing this hypothesis, it will be necessary to examine how exegetes, involved in the preaching event, rate the significance of hermeneutical method or methods. To this end, attention will need to be given to the approach of exegetes to the biblical text, when they are practically involved in the process of interpreting the biblical text in anticipation of preaching a sermon. In other words, the information that will be required is where the exegetes place hermeneutical method or methods in their practical exegetical task.95 4.4 THE DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH 4.4.1 THE RESEARCH DESIGN 4.4.1.1 A SURVEY DESIGN In considering the design of the proposed research, it was determined that the particular demands of the research hypothesis were such that rigid experimental or quasi- experimental research would not be effective in determined that a survey design (Huysamen 1994:97-109 & Groenewald 1986:54-57) would best serve the purposes of the required research, Huysamen (1994:97) describes research. Consequently, it was the broader category of research within which the survey falls as being ’... non- experimental, hypothesis testing research [with] no intervention and no random assignment of research participants to groups Specifically, the design will be a survey, of which Groenewald (1986:54) has explained The term survey covers such a wide vatiety of activities that a definition which attempts to embrace all these variations cannot be a definition any more. Surveys include studies of poverty, labour, markets, opinions, media, as well as a great number of studies by research organizations, universities, authorities and individuals. Their aims may range from a need for administrative information to the testing of cause-effect relationships. The subjects involved in surveys therefore vary from demographic characteristics, the social environment and activities, to the opinions, attitudes and beliefs of many groups of people. The number of people or cases involved in a survey can also not be determined by strict definition, From this variety alone it can already be deduced that the survey is the format of research which is used most often in social research,96 The survey usually reflects three basic characteristics’ (Groenewald 1986:54-55), namely: ©‘... information is collected about a great many similar cases .... A typical sociological survey will involve more than 100 cases © ‘a finite number of characteristics of cases are registered in the process ©‘... surveys are executed in a circumscribed area at a given time ...." 4.4.1.2 A POSTAL SURVEY Further to the decision to utilize a survey design was the decision to carry out a postal survey. Huysamen (1994:148-150) addresses four main considerations in the use of postal dispatch; namely: cost and ease of application, control over responding, anonymity, and response rate. On the positive side, the postal survey is carried out with relatively low costs and it ensures the anonymity of the respondents, In seeking to survey a relatively large number of persons”’ the cost of the potential research was an important factor in determining the research design. As a relatively large group of people were to be surveyed, the postal survey presented the most cost and time effective form of research, In addition, the nature of the research was such that the guarantee of anonymity would most likely contribute to a mote honesi and reliable response from those people surveyed, However, these positive aspects ate counterbalanced by the negative aspects of a relatively poor control over the responses and an often poor response rate. When those surveyed receive a postal questionnaire, the researcher has very little control over the quality and correctness of the responses. Of the ... methods iscussed so far, the researcher has least control over the conditions under which the questionnaires are completed, While the respondent's family usually permits a personal interview to be conducted 2 These characteristis will be further considered inthe section addressing sampling For this research, 97 people were targeted by means of the postal survey.” in silence and privacy, they may tend to show less consideration when, for example, dad sits down to complete the questionnaire . The chances of building up and maintaining rapport and of removing misunderstandings are obviously smaller than in either personal interviews or telephonic interviews. The chances are greater that some questions may be omitted or that they are not responded to in the order presented, or even that someone else may complete or censor some of the questions. To further complicate these problems is the problem of a generally poor response rate to postal surveys, which often drops from below 50%, to as low as 30-40% (Bless & Higson-Smith 1995:112). In the decision to utilize a postal survey, these factors have been considered and accepted as part of the chosen research design and manner of application. 442 THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE® 4.4.2.1 CONCEPTUALIZING THE QUESTIONNAIRE Having determined that the research would be carried out by means of a postal survey questionnaire, it was necessary to conceptualize a questionnaire that would adequately and meaningfully survey the research sample” and obtain the most accurate possible data. To this end, it was decided, in the context of a postal survey, to utilize a self- administered questionnaire (Bless & Higson-Smith 1995:108) which would need to be structured in such a manner as to answer certain key questions. These may be exptessed in the following conceptual questions which were: © In relative terms, how important is hermeneutical method in the exegesis of the biblical text, in the context of other proposed influencing factors? * If forced to choose the most significant influencing factors on the exegetical A sample copy of the questionnaire is included as Appendix A to this research, * See 4.4.3 for more details on the research sample.98 process, which would these be and in what order of significance? Whether the respondent made deliberate use of hermeneutical method or methods in the exegetical process, together with a brief clarification. ‘These conceptual questions were concretized into the following three key survey questions: © ‘How important are the following factors when you interpret (exegete) a biblical text in preparation for a sermon?” © ‘Which of the following factors do you regard as most important in the interpretation of a biblical text in preparation for a sermon?" * ‘Do you deliberately use a method or methods of interpretation when you interpret a bible text in preparation for a sermon?” Having determined the key survey questions, it was then necessary to determine the questions / statements that would be put to the respondents. 4.4.2.2 DETERMINING THE QUESTIONS / STATEMENTS In determining the questions / statements to be presented to the respondents, attention was given to the following general criteria: 1 Questions should be simple and short. Complex questions should be broken up into several simple ones. 2 Questions should be unambiguous. Words which are too general, too vague, or which could give rise to different interpretations, should be replaced with more specific terms .... 3 Questions should be understandable. Use vocabulary adapted to the level of education of the participants. Avoid technical expressions and sophisticated language. 4 Questions should not be double-barrelled, that is, contain two questions in one .... 5 Leading questions should be avoided. These are questions that99 favour one type of answer over another .... (Bless & Higson- Smith (1995:117), In addition, the specific requitements of the research needed to ensure that the relative significance of hermeneutical method was fairly examined in the context of the variety of proposed influencing factors on the exegetical process. Consequently, it was necessary to ensure that the questionnaire was not constructed with a bias either toward or away from the possible significance of hermeneutical method. In order to effect this, it was determined that each of the seven broad categories of potential influencing factors” would be represented in the questionnaire by two statements to which the respondents ‘would be required to respond. Considering both the general criteria and the specific requirements outlined above, the following statements"! were related to the broad categories“, as presented below: © Intrapersonal factors: > "Experiences that have significantly impacted on your life! > Personal interests, including academic and theological interests’ * Spiritual factors: > ‘The help of the Holy Spirit during interpretation’ > ‘Prayer before and during interpretation’ * Community factors: > "What the church you belong to accepts and believes’ > 'The needs and expectations of the congregation’ * Contextual factors: > ‘The cultural group/s in the congregation’ “° These being: intrapersonal, spiritual, community, contextual, methodological, traditional, and academic factors (refer t0 3.2). “is important for the reader to note that each broad category is represented by only’ two statements, ‘which are designed to reflect aspects of the categories which may be fairly responded to by the respondents These statements do not specifically reflect all the sub-sections considered in 32, but one statement often reflects more than one sub-section.100 > ‘The social context and experiences of the congregation’ Methodological factors: > ‘A particular method or methods for interpreting the Bible’ > "Your view of the Bible’ Traditional factors: > ‘The tradition and traditions of your church and denomination’ > "The way in which the text has been interpreted in the past Academic factors: > ‘The interpretations and opintions of academics and scholars! > ie way in which people you respect interpret the text’ 4.4.2.3 STRUCTURING THE QUESTIONNAIRE Having determined the questions / statements to be presented to the respondents, it was then necessary to combine the concretized questions and the representative statements in the structuring of the questionnaire’. In structuring the questionnaire, attention was given to the following guidelines: 1A logical sequence of questions which exhausts one topic before shifting to the next is the most meaningful approach 2 The repetition of the content of a question, formulated in different ways and place in different parts of the questionnaire, is another method of checking the veracity of answers and the honesty of a participant 3 The tendency of participants to answer all questions in a specific direction regardless of the content of the question, called response set, should be counteracted .... (Bless & Higson-Smith 1995:117- 118). * Refer to the sample copy of the questionnaire, included as Appendix A to this research.101 To deal with the guidelines and to seek to ensure that the respondents presented the least tainted responses, the questionnaire was structured as follows: © Section A called for the respondents to respond to the question, 'How important are the following factors when you interpret (exegete) a biblical text in preparation for a sermon?’ The statements were then randomly organized, requiring the respondents to answer on a scale of '0' to '10, with °0' valued as "Not important’ and ‘10 as 'Very important. * Section B called for the respondents to respond to the question, ‘Which of the following factors do you regard as most important in the interpretation of a biblical text in preparation for a sermon? The same statements used in section A were repeated in a new and different random order, requiring the respondents to choose the five that they regarded as most important and then 1o order these from ‘1' to 'S' with I" being the most important. © Section C presented, as question 1, the question, ‘Do you deliberately use a method or methods of interpretation when you interpret a bible text in preparation for a sermon? Depending on the answer to this question, respondents were required to answer one of two further sets of questions 4.4.2.4 PRESENTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE ‘The final step in the development of the survey questionnaire was to determine how it would be presented. Considering the nature of the questionnaire as a postal survey, a covering letter was presented with the questionnaire and an addressed and stamped ‘envelope was included. The covering letter“ included the following information: * A brief description of the research and its purpose, restricted by the need to ensure ™ Refer to the sample copy of the covering letter, included as Appendix B to this research.102 that the sespondents were not fainted by knowing the emphasis and focus of the research. * Information as to who was being researched; in other words, who the sample group was. + Anindication of what was required and approximately how long it would take to respond. * A request for the speedy return of the questionnaire in the enclosed envelope, * An undertaking to provide respondents with more information regarding the sired. . A note of thanks for their assistance. research if they so des + A brief description of the researcher, together with details of how the researcher may be contacted. ‘This meant that those being surveyed would receive an envelope that included a cover letter and the survey questionnaire, to which they were being asked to respond. 44.3 THE SURVEY SAMPLE 4.4.3.1 THE TYPE OF SAMPLE In completing the research, it was necessary to survey a selected sample of people in seeking to test the research hypothesis. ‘The main advantages of sampling have been outlined by Bless & Higson-Smith (1995:86), who suggest the following: (@) Gathering data on a sample is less time-consuming .... (b) Gathering data on a sample is less costly since the costs of research are proportional to the number of hours spent on data collection .... (©) Sampling may be the only practicable method of data collection (@) Sampling is a prectical way to collect data when the population is infinite or extremely large ....103 For the purposes of this study, purposive selection” was utilized. This form of sampling has been defined as follows: "In the case of non-probability or purposive selection, the sample is a result of a process of selection which is intentional or non-random.’ (Groenewald 1986:18). Specifically, a convenient sample was chosen for reasons that will be outlined in the following section. 4.43.2 THE CHOICE OF THE SAMPLE, While the concem of this research is one that may impact on everyone involved in the preaching event worldwide, a survey demands that the potential research population be represented by a chosen sample, Considering that this specific research finds very few parallels“ in available and accessible literature, it may be described as pioneering and it was determined that a clearly defined research sample be accessed"’. In addressing this issue, the following criteria were set, in the context of a postal survey research design: * Ease of access to the research sample. * Clear definition and description of the research sample. © Most effective cost and time management. . Adequate for comparative research. On the basis of the listed criteria and the demands of the research hypothesis the following convenience sample was selected, being defined as follows: Serving pastors of Baptist churches in membership of the Baptist Union of Southern Africa in the province of Gauteng. The specific seasons for the selection of this sample were as follows © Easy accessibility of the sample to the researcher who is also resident in the province of Gauteng. © The researcher is a Baptist and able to access a reliable and complete list of those 5 See Bless & Higson-Smith (1995.95), Groenewald (1986:18) and Huysamen (199444), “The only similar research found by the researcher is that of Mijoga (1996). “ See below for the reasons behind this research decision.pastors who fall within the defined parameters of the sample. * It is possible to define the research sample in a manner that would enable effective comparative research”, * In addition, the non-credal nature of Baptists imposes ess institutional demands on the exegetical process of Baptist pastors, The researcher is, therefore, satisfied that this convenient sample is sufficiently representative for the purposes of this research, particularly in the light of this research being somewhat pioneering and original. 4.43.3 THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE Having defined the research sample as above, the sample may further be described in the following terms: total size, racial breakdown*!, and gender breakdown, The specific sample is therefore described as outlined below. 97 persons “ Gauteng is an administrative province of South Affica For example, by another denomination within the same province or denominational groups in other provinces © ‘Baptists are... people ofthe Bible. They make statements from time to time, but their creed is the Bible. Baptists state that although their creeds are intended to summarize Bible truths, they frequently include other ideas ... arising from the ethos of the times when the creed is made. Therefore, they treat ‘reeds with caution.’ (Pamell 1980:15). However, itis acknowledged that this view itself may be an influencing factor in the exegetical process. 51 The researcher is aware ofthe danger of racial breakdowns; however, in the South African context itis important to ensure that in 2 survey of this nature racial breakdown is noted. Readers should pay attention tothe acknowledged limitations ofthe chosen research sample and proposals for future research in the following paragraphs. The reader is also reminded of the stated criteria for the choice of the chosen sample (see 4.4.3.2).105 "RACIAL GROUP™ = TNUMBER™ |) PERCENTAGE African 10 10,3% Coloured 8 Indian / Asian 3 wae 76 TOTAL a7 I GENDER. NUMBER™ PERCENTAGE | Male 96 98,9% 2 | 1.1% (TOTAL 97 100% | Reflecting on the description of the sample, the following aspects are acknowledged by the researcher which may need to be addressed in any future research into the issue under consideration: * The size of the sample is arguably adequate for the nature of this specific research, but may need to be enlarged in further research. © The raciel breakdown is not representative of the general South African population and all Christian denominations, and deliberate research samples that encompass greater numbers of other than White people would be valuable. * The gender breakdown reflects an extremely low number of women. This is probably due to attitudes toward women in ministry and the relatively lower number of women in ministry. It may be of value to examine the responses of women, to the issue under consideration, as a particular interest group. 4 THE RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH The research questionnaire was posted out to all potential respondents at the same time and responses received by a set date were included for analysis in the research**, This © The racial breakdown is based on the groups as uilized in the South Africa Survey 1999/2000 (SAIRR 1999:6), The questionnaires were posted on Thutsday 13 April 2000, and those received up to and including ‘Thursday 1 June 2000 (a period of seven weeks) were included for analysis.106 section will seek to order, interpret, and draw conclusions from the data gleaned frorn the questionnaires. In analysing and interpreting the data, it was important to reflect on the relative significance of hermeneutical method per se, and then also on the relative significance of methodological factors in the context of the specific research hypothesis, namely, that hermeneutical method or methods are the most significant factor in the exegesis of the biblical text, in the context of the preaching event. As a result, it was necessary to order the research findings in various ways, so as to reflect the following: * The relative significance of hermeneutical method or methods * The relative significance of methodological factors. © The view of respondents of hermeneutical method, 45.1 ORDERING THE DATA On the basis of the completed questionnaires®® the various sections of the questionnaire are ordered as set out below, 4.5.1.1 SECTION A® Based on the scores extracted from the completed questionnaires’, the statements are ranked by an average score out of ten as listed below: 1 Thehelp of the Holy Spirit during interpretation 8,7 2 Prayer before and after interpretation 8.2 3 Your view of the Bible 19 4 A particular method or methods for interpreting the Bible 61 * a6 questionnaires were returned, representing 47,5% of the research sample See Appendix A forthe relevant section on the questionnaire * See Appendix C for the tabulated scores by separate statement and individual respondent.107 5 The interpretations and opinions of academics and scholars 60 6 The needs and expectations of the congregation 3.7 7= The social contexts and experiences of the congregation 56 T= The way in which the text has been interpreted in the past 56 9 The way in which people you respect interpret the text 5,5 10 Experiences that have significantly impacted on your life 53 11 Personal interests, including academic and theological interests 5,0 12 The cultural group/s in the congregation 49 13= ‘The tradition and traditions of your church and denomination 4,3 13= What the church you belong to actepts and believes 43 Combining the statements, the proposed influencing factors are ranked by an average score out of ten as listed below: 1 Spiritual factors 83 2 Methodological factors. 7,0 3 Academie factors 58 4 Contextual factors 53 5 Intrapersonal factors 52 6= Community factors 5,0 6= Traditional factors 3.0 4.5.1.2 SECTION B” In this section of the questionnaire, respondents were compelled to reflect a particular concern for certain influences on the exegetical process in that only five of the statements could be selected, and these ordered from most important to least important. Based on ** See 4.4.2.2 for the factors as checked by the statements, two statements per factor. * See Appendix A for the relevant section on the questionnaire,108 the scores extracted from the completed questionnaires”, two forms of ranking were possible; firstly, by the average score out of ten (by statement and factors), and secondly, by the percentage of respondents who chose a given statement (and by implication a given factor). This produced results that may be presented as in the following four paragraphs Ranking of the individual statements based on the average score from respondents: 1 The help of the Holy Spirit during interpretation 82 2 Prayer before and during interpretation. 70 3 Your view of the Bible 45 4 A particular method or methods for interpreting the Bible 2,5 5 The interpretations and opinions of academics and scholars 18 6 Theneeds and expectations of the congregation 14 Experiences that have significantly impacted on your life 13 ‘The way in which the text has been interpreted in the past 13 9 The way in which people you respect interpret the text 09 10 The social context and experiences of the congregation 07 11 Personal interests, including academic and theological interests 0,2 12 The cultural group/s in the congregation 01 13= The tradition and traditions of your church and denomination 0,0 13= What the church you belong to accepts and believes 0.0 Ranking of the influencing factors based on the combined average score of the related statements: 1 Spiritual factors 16 2 Methodological factors. 3,5 3 Academic factors 14 ® See Appendix D forthe tabulated scores by separate statement and individual respondent,109 4 Intrapersonal factors 08 S= Community factors 07 = Traditional factors 07 7 Contextual factors 04 Ranking of the individual statements based on the percentage of respondents that chose a given statement: 1 The help of the Holy Spirit during interpretation 100% 2 Prayer before and during interpretation 90% 3 Your view of the Bible 74% 4 The interpretations and opinions of academies and scholars 48% 5 A particular method or methods for interpreting the Bible 45% 6 Theneeds and expectations of the congregation 36% 7 The way in which the text has been interpreted in the past 33% 8 Experiences that have significantly impacted on your life 26% 9 The way in which people you respect interpret the text 21% 10 The social context and experiences of the congregation 19% 11= Personal interests, including academic and theological interests 8% 11= The cultural group/s in the congregation 8% 13 The tradition and traditions of your church and denomination 2% 14 What the church you belong to accepts and believes 0% Ranking of the influencing factors based on the combined percentage of respondents that chose the related statements: 1 Spiritual factors 95% 2 Methodological factors 60% Academic factors 35% 4= Traditional factors 18%10 4= Community factors 18% 6 _Intrapersonal factors 15% 7 Contextual factors 12% 4.5.1.3 SECTION C™ In summary”, the findings of section C of the questionnaire may be outlined as presented below. Question 1: Do you deliberately use a method or methods of interpretation when you interpret a biblical text in preparation for a sermon? Yes 35 (76% of respondents) No 11 (24% of respondents) Question 2a: If your answer 10 question 1 is ‘yes’: Name the method or methods. Various answers were presented; however it was valuable to note the following information: Reasonably named an acknowledged method 8 Possibly alluded to an acknowledged method 10 Did not name nor allude to an acknowledged method 7 Question 2b: If your answer to question 1 is 'yes': How rigidly do you use the method? Very 22 (63% of yes respondents) Partially 11.-—_(31% of yes respondents) Loosely 2-—-_-(6% of yes respondents) 5! See Appendix A for the velevant section ofthe questionnaire ® Refer to Appendix E for a more comprehensive presentation of the responses to section C. © Refer to Appendix E fr all the responses recorded “By acknowledged method, reference is being made to such methods which would be acknowledged in most texts addressing the issues of exegesis and hermeneutics.Mi Question 3a: If your answer fo question 2 is ‘no’: Why not? Various answers were presented”, Question 36: If your answer to question I is ‘no’: Do you think that using a specific method or methods of interpretation may help? Yes 6 (55% of no respondents) No 5 (45% of no respondents) 4.5.1.4 OVERALL ORDERING Based on sections A and B of the questionnaire, the overall ordering of the statements and the proposed influencing factors are as indicated below®. The statements are ordered as follows: 1 The help of the Holy Spitit during interpretation 2 Prayer before and during interpretation. 3 Your view of the Bible 4 A particular method or methods for interpreting the Bible 5 The interpretations and opinions of academics and scholars 6 The needs and expectations of the congregation 7 The way in which the text has been interpreted in the past 8= Experiences that have significantly impacted on your life” 8= The social context and experiences of the congregation 10 The way in which people you respect interpret the text 11 Personal interests, including academic and theological interests © Refer to Appendix E forall responses recorded. “ This ordering has been determined by means of averaging the orders presented in 4.5.1.1 and 4.5.1.2, as represented by the average out of ten, "in comparing the lists drawn from the scores of section A and B of the questionnaire, the only factors that did not hold the same position in the two lists are: (1) Experiences that have significantly impacted on your life; (2) The social context and experiences of the congregation; and (3) The way in which people you respect interpret the text.12 12 The cultural group/s in the congregation 13= The tradition and traditions of your church and denomination 13= What the church you belong to accepts and believes ‘Comparing the ordering of the proposed influencing factors, the following list represents the due ordering: 1 Spiritual factors 2 Methodological factors 3 Academie factors 4 Intrapersonal factors 5= Contextual factors S= Community factors 5= Traditional factors 452 INTERPRETING THE DATA Having ordered the data accumulated through the postal questionnaire, it is necessary to present a more detailed interpretation of the accumulated data. The purpose of this section will be to consider those factors and issues which may lie within the basic ordering of the data, and to seek to present insights that may not be apparent at face value. To this end, consideration will be given to the following matters: Testing the research hypothesis. The significance of hermeneutical method, The significance of methodological factors. The significance of other proposed factors, Contextual factors were the only category of factors that did not hold the same relative position on both ‘orderings; being 4" on the basis of section A on the questionnaire and 7" on the basis of section B. ‘Community factors and traditional factors held the same relative position on the basis of both sections,113 Fach one of the matters will address certain key issues that form a critical foundation for further consideration of the research topic. 4.5.2.1 TESTING THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS ‘The main purpose of the questionnaire research was to test the research hypothesis, which read as follows: Hermeneutical method or methods are the most significant factor in the exegesis of the biblical text, in the context of the preaching event. Based on the findings of the research”, it has been demonstrated that, for the chosen research population”, hermeneutical method or methods are not the most significant factor in the exegesis of the biblical text, in the context of the preaching event. Furthermore, methodological factors are also not most significant in the exegesis of the biblical text, In ather words, hermeneutical method/s and methodological factors are not most significant; and the research hypothesis has been disproved. The rest of this section will pay attention to further consideration of the implications of the main finding with regard to the research hypothesis, which will serve to place the research findings in a proper context. 4.5.2.2 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD Having demonstrated that hermeneutical method or methods are not the most significant in exegesis, attention needs to be given to the significance of hermeneutical method. In the findings of section A of the questionnaire, three statements were placed above the statement referring to method or methods; these were those addressing the help of the Holy Spirit, the place of prayer, and the exegete's view of the Bible. It is also important to note that the average score for these three statements Was 8,7, 8,2 and 7,9 respectively, 7 itis acknowledged thatthe research presetted is preliminary and has certain limitations as acknowledged in section 4.2.1 paragraph 2 ”' Being ... serving pastors of Baptist churches in membership of the Baptist Union of Southern Africa in the province of Gauteng.ws while the statement referring to method or methods averaged at 6,1. Therefore, it is apparent that hermeneutical method, while high in relative terms, is not regarded as equally significant to the three higher statements. This observation becomes more apparent when the scores presented in section B are examined. Section B compelled the respondents to isolate only five statements that they reganied as most important, together with them being compelled to order their statements”. Here the statements that dealt with the help of the Holy Spirit and the place of prayer scored noticeably higher; namely, 8,2 and 7,0 respectively. In relative terms, the statement addressing the exegete’s view of the Bible dropped to an average of 4,5; with average for hermeneutical method noticeably lower at 2,5. It is interesting to observe that when an analysis of the percentage of respondents is calculated, in terms of section B, method or methods are surpassed, albeit marginally, by the interpretations and opinions of academics and scholars. The relevant percentages are 48% for academics and scholars, with method or methods scoring at 45% On the basis of the above comparisons and observations, it may be suggested that while hermeneutical method or methods are important, in relative terms, they are not as important as the three statements that scored higher; namely, the help of the Holy Spirit, the place of prayer, and the exegete's view of the Bible. This finding would demand that hermeneutical theorists exercise a greater degree of caution, when endeavouring to emphasize the importance and significance of hermeneutical method or methods. It would also require that such theorists take seriously the significance and role of the Holy Spirit and prayer in their theoretical considerations and reflections”. Further attention will be given to these issues later in the research. ® Readers should note that when section B was scored, the statements that were listed higher were given a higher Joading inthe scoring. Refer to Appendix D for further explanation, ® Two significant work in this regard are those of Vanhoozer (1998), Is There a Meaning in This Text? and Wallace (1999), On the Interpretation and Use ofthe Bible.us 4.5.2.3 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF METHODOLOGICAL FACTORS Developing from the significance of hermeneutical method or methods, is the question of the significance of methodological factors. It is apparent from the discussion on and findings regarding the significance of hermeneutical method or methods that methodological factors are consequently also regarded as less significant than spiritual factors. In section A, spiritual factors averaged at 8,5 as against an average for methodological factors of 7,0. The averages derived from the responses to section B were 7,6 and 3,5; while the percentage responses were 95% versus 60%. In all cases these factors were followed by academic factors: 5,8 in section A; 1,4 and 35% in section B. ‘As with hermeneutical method or methods, it is apparent that spiritual factors are notably more significant than methodological factors; while methodological factors appear to be equally more significant than academic factors. Once again, it is necessary that proponents of methodology as the solution to the problems of exegesis and interpretation exercise a greater degree of caution, when emphasizing the importance and significance of methodology. It is also necessary that proponents of methodological solutions pay greater attention to the spiritual factors that are apparently very important to those who exegete the biblical text, in the context of the preaching event. Responses 10 the challenges of exegesis and interpretation of the biblical text will need to consider spiritual factors more than is currently the norm, especially in so-called academic works. 4.5.2.4 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF OTHER PROPOSED FACTORS Having discussed the relative significance of hermeneutical method or methods in the exegetical process, it is also necessary to address the respondents’ view of the other proposed influencing factors. The factors that related fourth to seventh, in the questionnaire responses, were the following: traditional, community, contextual, andnN6 intrapersonal. With the possible exception of the traditional factors”, these factors may be described as those which are more subjective in the mind and practice of the exegete. If that interpretation be correct, the findings of the survey may reflect an endeavour, on the part of the exegete to be more objective, In other words, with the arguable exclusion of the spiritual factors, the way in which exegetes seek to be objective is through the use of methodological and academic factors. Whether such an objectivity can be attained is subject to debate, but that would not necessarily change the chosen approach of many exegetes, regardless of their context. What is of concem, is the relatively low scoring given to these factors in the survey, especially in relation to methodological factors. The scores given were as follows: Methodological intrapersonal 5,2 0.8 [Contextual 5,3 04 ‘Community 5,0 0,7 Traditional 5,0 0,7 The question to be asked is whether this indicates an unhealthy concern for the objectivity of methodological and academic factors, as against the more subjective influences; or whether it points to an unhealthy lack of interest in the more subjective influences, which are notable in that they tend to be more concemed for people than for the biblical text, However theorists approach the challenges raised by the more subjective influencing factors, it would appear that these influences should not be ignored, as they address the heart and circumstances of those people who need to come to terms with the meaning and message of the biblical text that is being exegeted, especially in the context of the preaching event. It needs to be asked whether the intrapersonal, contextual, community % Dealt with in the questionnaire by means ofthe statements: The tradition and traditions of vour church «and denomination, and The way in which the text has been interpreted inthe past.7 and traditional factors should ever be relegated, as they appear to have been amongst the respondents”® 4.5.2.5 THE UNDERSTANDING OF HERMENEUTICAL METHOD OR METHODS A final interpretive comment that needs to be made relates to the manner in which the respondents answered question 2a of section A of the questionnaire. The question addressed those respondents who had answered in the affirmative regarding whether they deliberately used ... fa] method or methods of interpretation when ... [interpreting] a biblical text in preparation for a sermon ...”*; they were then required to ... name the method or methods. While 35 (76%) of the respondents answered in the affirmative, only 8 reasonably named an acknowledged method and 10 possibly alluded to an acknowledged method. This meant that 18 respondents suggested that they deliberately used a method or methods of interpretation, but were unable to name or allude to the given method. In this category of respondents, being 52% of the affirmative replies, answers were presented such as the following”: ‘Comparing Scripture with Scripture, reference to reliable, conservative commentaries.’ ‘Allowing the text to "preach itself”, consider the various contexts.' ‘Pray that the Holy Spirit will reveal meaning first, further insight from academic material." ‘Bxegetical method, commentaries and lexicons." ‘Biblical hermeneutics." ‘Focus on the natural flow of the text, the natural flow of the text is correct." 7 Tis question will receive attention in the sections following after the research. % Question | of section C ofthe questionnaire, ” Refer to Appendix E for al the answers recorded.18 ‘Reading different views on the passage.’ The question that needs to be considered is whether these 18 responses should be recorded under those who do use hermeneutical method or methods, or whether they would better be considered as those who do not use hermeneutical method or methods. If the latter were accepted, the findings of section C of the questionnaire would change significantly, as reflected in the table below. SECTION C: 35 = 76% T= 24% Considering the above table, the impact of those respondents who did not name nor allude to a hermeneutical method or methods is significant. Therefore, the findings of section C of the questionnaire” need to be held somewhat tentatively, and used with caution in the ongoing consideration of the significance of hermeneutical method or methods in the exegetical process. This being in the stated context of the preaching event. 4.5.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE DATA. In reflecting on the research data and findings, three main conclusions may be drawn. ‘These conclusions may be summarized as follows: © That spiritual factors are significant to the exegetical process © That hermeneutical method or methods, together with other methodological factors, are important in the exegetical process. mended on the assumption that those respondents who did not name nor possible allude to a method or ‘methods of interpretation do not deliberately use a method or methods,lig © That there appears to be a weak consideration of the subjective factors in the ‘exegetical process; namely, intrapersonal, contextual and community factors®. As this research seeks to address the implication of these conclusions, there will be an endeavour to address the question of the role of hermeneutical method or methods in the context of the following concerns that derive from the above conclusions: © That the role of spiritual factors be positively acknowledged. © That the place of hermeneutical method or methods not be sidelined. © That the significance of the other proposed factors be taken more seriously. In the light of these factors, this study will endeavour to present a new philosophy of hermeneutics, as opposed to presenting a new method for the hermeneutical endeavour"! This endeavour will be presented in the following section, An Endeavour to Develop a New Approach to Hermeneutical Method - Toward a Hermeneutic of Responsibility. 5. ANENDEAVOUR TO DEVELOP A NEW APPROACH TO HERMENEUTICAL METHOD - TOWARD A HERMENEUTIC OF RESPONSIBILITY 5.1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Based on the prior theoretical and research considerations, it is necessary to endeavour to develop a response to the data considered and findings presented. Such a response would This shortcoming or weakness in the research is an aspect that should receive further attention in future research and studies. "© Traditional factors are not included here as they are arguably more objective and are generally presented {nan objective form. In addition, those churches which hold strongly to stated tradition often demand a deliberate adherence to such traditions (the Roman Catholic Church been a prominent example) 8 The reader is reminded of the quote by Botha (1998:51, italics added) referred to in 2.3.2.1, ‘New methods are nothing new in New Testament scholarship, and the sheer numbers of approaches are daunting to say the least. With shifts in focus on various aspects involved inthe communication process, various methodologies have arisen ..... A New Testament scholar in the last decade of the twentieth century is confronted with innumerable ‘methodologies and approaches to choose from ... and each of these methodologies has the same aim: to read and understand the communication of the text alittle better.120 need to consider the findings of the research, as well as the theoretical understandings. As such, these introductory remarks will briefly consider what such an endeavour should probably not do, and what should be considered in the endeavour, 5.1.1 WHAT SHOULD NOT BE DONE The particular concern of this research has been that of the place and significance of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process. Therefore, from this point onward, hermeneutical method will again be the focus of consideration. In the light of this emphasis, there are four main options that probably should not be followed; these are listed as follows™: © Seek to develop a new method * Seek to move toward a single method. © Seek to move toward a common interpretation, * Seek to move toward an ecumenical interpretation, The options listed above have in common a desire for oneness or unity. That would be the motive, for example, behind those who vigorously contend for the priority of a single given hermeneutical method. In such an approach, the implications are generally: ‘My method is right, your method is wrong’; therefore, 'My interpretation is right, your interpretation is wrong’. On the other hand, for example, are those who argue that, ‘If we The all sit down together, we can find a common method and a common interpretation’. problem with both approaches is that they fail to consider many of the realities that are part of the history of biblical interpretation and the contemporary state of interpretation, The realities include: an ever increasing number of new methods and methodologies; very limited success in any moves toward a single method; effectively no period in * itis acknowledged that this list may not include all possible options; however, in the context of this, research, these are deemed to be most critical1 church history when there has been a common interpretation accepted by all; and only poor efforts at establishing an ecumenical interpretation of biblical texts and passages® In the light of the above realities, it is arguably true that the solutions are not those as listed above; namely, a new method, a single method, a common interpretation, or an ecumenical interpretation. However, the question then needs to be put as to what should be considered. 5.1.2 WHAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED in the light of the material presented so far, there are arguably four issues that need to be considered in seeking to address the place and significance of hermeneutical methed in the exegetical process. These issues are: . The need to acknowledge the importance of spiritual factors™ * The need to acknowledge methodological variety. . The need to acknowledge the impact of subjective factors®. + Theneed to acknowledge interpretive variety. 5.1.2.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF SPIRITUAL FACTORS. Based on the material previously considered and the research findings, it is apparent that spiritual factors do play an important, if not most important, role in the exegetical process. It is also arguably true that many of the theoretical texts dealing with hermeneutical method place very little or no emphasis on such factors. The reasons for this may be that spiritual factors are assumed, that they are not regarded as sufficiently important and significant to address, or that they are not regarded as factors at all Whatever the reason or reasons for this state of affairs, it is proposed that any ® It is arguably true that ecumenical interpretations are simply a statement of the lowest common denominator inthe interpretive understandings of those gathered together at a given place and/or time. As previously defined inthis research,122 consideration of hermeneutical method and its application that fails to address the demands of spiritual factors, has failed to take seriously the understanding and practive of the main practitioners of exegesis, namely, the pulpit preacher. As a result, any endeavour to move forward in the area of hermeneutical method, will need to pay greater attention to these factors. §.1.2.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF METHODOLOGICAL VARIETY No matter how the situation is assessed and evaluated, it is also necessary to acknowledge the reality of variety in proposed hermeneutical method and methods While various eras may have been characterized by a significant method or methods, such method or methods were not accepted to the exclusion of all others. A simple overview of the history of interpretation quickly reveals the ongoing presence of varieties of method and methodology®®. As a result, it will be necessary to acknowledge this variety; as Deist & Burden (1980:125) have argued What we need, therefore, is a multiplicity of methods - methods which will supplement each other so that the exegete will be in a position to process the greatest possible amount of information at one and the same time. Such a comprehensive method does not exist as yet, and would be extremely hard to design, Why? The historical-literal method on the one hand and the historical-critical ones on the other hand differ from one another ... in regard to certain fundamental questions. For one thing, these methods start out from different views as to what the Bible is. For another thing, they are built on different philosophical bases. Specifically, they each subscribe to a different philosophy of science. ‘The academic field of philosophy of science is, however, an extremely complex one; treatment of it would take 55 As previously defined in this research * See, for example, Bray (1996)123 us beyond the scope of an elementary introduction such as this. The important point here is that the answer to our problem cannot be a simple one. In particular, it just isn't possible to say, ‘Use all the existing methods, then!" For, some methods are mutually incompatible. Like oil and water, they won't mix. ‘Therefore, in eny attempt to design a method of exegesis capable of extracting and processing the greatest possible amount of information for a text one would have to make sure that the methods being put together were in fact mutually compatible. Of course, if one did identify two or more methods that were mutually compatible, then they would be certain to overlap in some areas. ‘Then, too, in some areas some methods are better than others. However, such an approach does not automatically imply that the worldviews or fundamental theses of the variety of methods are accepted without criticism, Addressing this possibility, Thiselton (1998:7) suggests that '.. the work of Paul Ricoeur shows that it is possible to appreciate a wide plurality of hermeneutical approaches without subscribing to a pluralism of world views.’ In other words, while methodological variety must, of necessity, be acknowledged, such acknowledgement need not be all-accepting, all-embracing and non-critical. 5.1.2.3 THE IMPACT OF SUBJECTIVE FACTORS, Of particular concern in the context of in the practical research™”, was the seemingly limited or insignificant concern for subjective factors in the exegetical process. It is suggested that this is perhaps one of the more irresponsible attitudes on the part persons involved in the exegetical process, especially as all human beings exist and live in a see452.4,124 world of subjective experiences”, Failure to consider these experiences and factors, is failure to take seriously one's humanity and the nature of human existence (1993:293) emphasizes this when he argues that Larkin In the end, the communication process must focus on man the interpreter. Human beings stand in their cultural context, receiving God's message by means of a book from an ancient and different cultural context. They are responsible for interpreting, applying, and then communicating the Bible's meaning to their context and even cross-culturally through contextualization. In other words, any approach to hermeneutical method and to the exegetical task that fails to consider and integrate subjective factors, is an approach that will probably leave both exegete and hearers with an incomplete understanding of the biblical text, its relevance, and of themselves as human beings. 5.1.2.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INTERPRETIVE VARIETY The fourth issue to be considered is that interpretive variety. As uncomfortable as many people may be with this state of affairs, it is again true of the history of interpretation and the contemporary situation that variety and varieties in interpretation exist. In addressing this state of affairs, Johnson (1983:93) argues that Very few in evangelical Christianity [probably, in all Christianity] consciously and willfully twist the meaning and application of the Bible. A good scholar aims at maxirmam validity in hermeneutics. The goal is to reflect the true position of the divine and human authors of Scripture. The fact that we have mutually exclusive explanations for some parts of the Bible suggests that we have not heard the last word on the “true” position, however. The differences among biblical interpreters are not just Its acknowledged that many sources call for and methods demand a serious consideration of and place for subjective factors. © tis not being suggested that such be determinative in the use of hermeneutical method/s nor in the actual exegetical process125 accounted for by inadequate methods of interpretation, The current science of hermeneutics has come a long way in refining these methods. The reason for different interpretations may be found in a place other than adequate technique. It may be due to the fact that we are reluctant to revise or change ous theological models. Personality, society, and culture act as lenses through which the Bible is viewed. In other words, the reasons for the variety and varieties in interpretation are not dealt with by means of a right-wrong approach; rather, it demands a recognition of the variety and an acknowledgement that reasons for variety lie not only in hermeneutical methods, but ina plethora of factors and reasons”. 52 AFOURFOLD APPROACH In the light of the preceding discussion, it is proposed that the demand in hermeneutical method and exegesis lies not in methodology, but in the manner in which the exegete approaches the use of hermeneutical method or methods and the given exegetical task. Conradie (et al 1995:261) has argued that '.., in the search for relatively more adequate interpretations, it is important to try to understand the event of interpretation better.’ It is in that event and process that a hermeneutic of responsibility will be proposed; in other words, it will be suggested that many of the problems and challenges in the exegetical process lie not at the level of methodology, but at the level of the application of the method or methods. Of particular concern is the application of hermeneutical method in the exegetical process, in a narrow focus of concer and interest, which often results in an irresponsible exegesis of the biblical text. Therefore, the endeavour that follows will seek to emphasize a responsible approach in the use of the chosen hermeneutical method or methods in the exegetical process. This endeavour will also seek to ensure that attention is given to spiritual factors, * Notably, the reality ofthe interpreter’s humanity and the related limits to knowledge and understanding,126 methodological variety, subjective factors and interpretive variety’. As indicated in the diagram below, this approach will incorporate a challenge to the exegete to be responsible in their application af hermeneutical method in the exegetical process to four realms of consideration and significance, namely”: © The God of Scripture. © The community of faith The world at large. * The historical and universal church. It is argued that these four realms of consideration and significance serve to address the significant concerns of this research, both theoretical and practical; however, it is necessary to challenge the exegete to take all four realms seriously’, as many of the weaknesses in exegesis lie in an overemphasis on one or two of the realms, at the expense See 5.1.2 ” These four reaims will be defined, discussed and developed later. © While many writers take one or two of the realms seriously, the specific concer is that all four must be considered and taken seriously.