Introduction
Gordon
D. Fee and Douglas Stuart’s book was first published in 1981. Their reasoning
was four-fold. First, their concern for the book was based on the understanding
of the several types of genre within the Bible and the effective study each of
these genres.[1] Second,
they are concerned with not just reading the text, but also the intelligent reading
of the text.[2] Third,
the authors feel that they have enough of an understanding of the subject and
concepts of hermeneutics that their words are worth heeding.[3]
Fourth, the greatest urgency of writing the book was to help believers with
understanding the contemporary application of the Bible itself.[4]
The reason for the second edition is due to some dated wording and other
details within the text, especially chapter 2 that deals with modern
translations.[5] Overall,
Fee and Stuart’s reason behind producing the book was to provide the modern
Bible student with a resource designed to provide hermeneutical insights on how
to dissect the text; however, from the beginning, the book contain authorial
bias that weakens the book’s overall value.
Summary
The book contains eleven chapters
specifically dealing the ten genres of the Bible and the application of the hermeneutical
process. The book also contains two more chapters that are the introduction, as
well as a whole chapter on choosing a good translation, and then an appendix evaluating
the current commentaries.[6]
This critique will analyze the introduction that defines the tools, the chapter
on choosing a good translation, as well as some of the chapters dealing with
the genres in chapters 3-13.
Analysis
Fee
and Stuart’s introduction explains the need to interpret the Bible. Based on a
presuppositional stance that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant in the
sixty-six books found in the evangelical tradition, the authors give three
fundamental keys. First, the reader is the interpreter.[7] The
authors rightly point out that often pastors and teachers begin digging before
they even look at the general meaning of the text.[8]
They also rightly point out that the Bible is not an obscure book if read and
understood properly.[9]
This culminates with the point that the aim of interpretation is simple, “to
get at the plain meaning of the text”.[10] The
overall goal of chapters 3-13 is to help the reader know why different options
of exegesis/hermeneutics exist and how to make the commonsense judgments,
enabling the reader to discern the correct interpretation.[11]
The
second key is that the reader must begin with exegesis. Exegesis comes from the
Greek, and it simply means to “pull out”. The goal of exegesis should be to understand
the original context and content. The authors correctly point out that exegesis
is the systematic study of the Bible in order to comprehend the original
meaning by looking at both the historical and literary context as well as the
grammatical content.[12] Historical
context seeks to determine several things: the time and culture of the author
and audience, including the geographical, topographical, and political factors
as well as the occasion for writing the passage. Literary context is the
understanding that words only have meaning in sentences, and biblically
speaking, sentences only have meaning in relation to the preceding and/or
succeeding sentences.[13]
After
the reader determines the historical and literary context, content is then
determined. Understanding the content is to understand the specific words the
author uses to stress a point, as well as the grammatical structure of the
passage.[14] The
Apostle John used logoj for a specific
reason in John 1:1, ff. Content seeks to determine why John used this word in
reference to Jesus instead of r[hma. Understanding
the historical and literary context, as well as the content guides the reader
to the “commonsense meaning”.
Fee
and Stuart stress that instead of merely conducting exegesis when the text is
difficult to glean the “commonsense meaning”, exegesis should be done for every
passage regardless of the difficulty.[15] This
not only assists with difficult passages, but also prevents false
understandings of easy passages. An example of this is when one deals with
James 2:14-26 – is the author describing salvation by works or salvation
demonstrated by works; after a proper exegesis, the conclusion is salvation
demonstrated by works. While this understanding may be ambiguous in the
immediate context, the broader context determines this based on several other
passages (i.e. Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:8, etc).
At
the end of the section of exegesis, Fee and Stuart list three things the reader
needs in order to grasp the context and content: a good translation, a good
Bible dictionary, and good commentaries. This author feels that the list should
have included a good concordance such as Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, as
well as some word study helps, such as an expository dictionary such as Vines’,
Wuest, or Mounce’s. Fee and Stuart place the use of a commentary last because,
according to them, it should be consulted last. However, that is not always the
case. Sometimes, Bible dictionaries can be quite vague on a subject, and a good
commentary can shed light on the nuances not found in the dictionary. An
excellent example that combines a dictionary with a commentary would be the
Socio-Rhetorical Commentaries currently being published.
The
third key is after the reader exegetes the passage, the reader then conducts
hermeneutics. Fee and Stuart use the term “hermeneutics” in the narrower sense
of how a passage applies to the reader today.[16] Fee
and Stuart rightly explain that one does not start with determining the “here
and now” because this tends to lead to a false application of scripture.[17] Fee
and Stuart end the introduction by cautioning against searching for the “hidden
meaning” within the text, and while prophecies and certain New Testament uses
of Old Testament verses expound upon a previously unseen meaning, caution must
be exuded when going beyond the “commonsense meaning”.[18]
After
discussing context and content in regards to exegesis as well as the proper
goal of hermeneutics, Fee and Stuart critically compare a few biblical
translations, which include eighteen translations and their placement on the
scale.[19]
These translations include the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and the TNIV are the major
translations compared. Fee and Stuart discuss the three types of translations:
free, formal-equivalent/literal, and functional equivalent. Fee and Stuart
argue against the formal-equivalent because it uses archaic word-for-word
translations that leave the reader confused or guides the reader into an
eisegetical understanding; the argument against the free translation is that
the translator conducts too many updates giving it more of a commentary feel
and not what the original author had in mind.[20] Ultimately,
they recommend the TNIV that is a functional equivalent as the preferred
translation.[21]
This
author feels that, while Fee and Stuart’s treatment of free translations is
sound, their treatment of formal-equivalent is weak in certain areas. Three of
these areas are wordplay, grammar and syntax, and matters of gender.[22]
Concerning wordplays, Fee and Stuart state “translations that move toward
functional equivalence try to work with the wordplay, even when doing so may
alter the meaning somewhat”.[23] If
the translator finds himself changing the meaning, then that should cause
concern and should drive the translator to rethink how he approaches the text.
Concerning grammar and syntax, Fee and Stuart critically argue against the KJV
usage of “and” concerning w+ conjunctions
as well as phrases such as “and it came to pass” in Hebrew, as well as the
genitive “tou” usages in Greek
prepositional phrases. They would rather see “burning coals” rather than “coals
of fire”; however, either way this phrase is said, the meaning stays the same.[24] In
this author’s opinion, critically arguing against usage is personal preference
and should not have been included. The matter of gender is treated similarly to
the way grammar and syntax is treated, explaining that the usage of “brothers”
in Pauline writings can refer to both men and women in certain passages,
similarly to “blessed is he” in Psalm 1:1.[25]
Again, the authors are showing preference because, if the student follows their
rules of hermeneutic, the student would arrive with the understanding that in certain
places “brothers” and “he/him” pronouns can refer to both men and women.
Fee
and Stuart, starting in chapter 3, begin applying their method to the ten
genres found in the Bible. The first genre is the Epistles (Romans – Jude). Fee
and Stuart explain that, historically, the Epistles are all “occasional
documents (i.e. arising out of and intended for a specific occasion)”.[26]
All of these documents come from the first century, and revolve around issues
specifically within the context of the Mediterranean world. Fee and Stuart
explain that one should not read these as “theological treatises” but as
letters with “task-oriented theology” included.[27]
When dealing with the literary context of the Epistle, Fee and Stuart explain
that the reader must think in paragraphs.[28]
This author agrees that this is fundamental in understanding the content and
context of the Epistles and feels that Fee and Stuart explain this section
quite except for one area. They use I Corinthians 1-4 as an example and then
move on to some examples of problem passages. When discussing these passages Fee
and Stuart move directly from text to commentary, which contradict the given
steps in the introduction, nor during this entire explanation of I Corinthians
1-4 do they refer to a Bible dictionary, or other translations before
consulting a commentary.[29]
This seems illogical at best and self-contradictory at worst; however, on a
positive note, they do demonstrate how to look for repetitive words, stressed
themes, and key sentences that introduce new subjects within the letter.
The
second genre Fee and Stuart analyze is the Hebrew narrative.[30]
For the most part, this section is sound; however, two things stand out which
weaken the chapter. Fee and Stuart state, “Old Testament narratives are not
intended to teach moral lessons”.[31]
At the end of the chapter they state, “Not every narrative has an
individual identifiable moral application”.[32]
Either no narrative has moral lessons, or some do, but stating both contradicts
itself. The second statement they make is, “the promises and calling of God to
Israel are your historical promises and calling”.[33]
This statement is not true; for example, God promises to save a remnant of
Israel throughout the Bible – this promise and calling does not belong to this
author because he is a Gentile, not an Israelite. Fee and Stuart conclude with
the ten principles summarized at the end of the chapter and any reader should
definitely take note.[34]
Following
the chapter on Hebrew narrative, Fee and Stuart discuss Acts, the Gospels, the
Parables, the Law(s), the Prophets, the Psalms, Wisdom, and Revelation
(Apocalypse). Overall, this section follows the previously mentioned ones by
stating some generally accepted rules, and then Fee and Stuart present their
rules, and then draw a summary at the end of each chapter. Overall, their
evidence is adequate when dealing with their understanding; however, their rules
are personal opinions and should be treated as such. Their arguments, for the
most part, are clear with the exception of those stated above where some
contradiction is evident.
Conclusion
This
book does have value if one is reading from a modern evangelical standpoint.
Fee and Stuart’s discussion on translations is brief and opinionated and does
not provide enough support to move from a KJV or NKJV stance to a TNIV stance.
The appendix that discusses the commentaries is helpful for those that are not
familiar with many of the works and has limited resources at their disposal,
but this again is opinionated. This author definitely recommends reading other
resources besides this one; however, overall, this book is worth the time to
read it. Overall, Fee and Stuart’s reason behind producing the book was to
provide the modern Bible student with a resource designed to provide
hermeneutical insights on how to dissect the text; however, from the beginning,
the book contain authorial bias that weakens the book’s overall value.
Bibliography
Fee, Gordon D,
and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2nd
ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
[1] Gordon
D. Fee and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2nd
ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 13.
[7] Ibid, 17-31.
[8] Ibid, 17.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid, 21.
[13] Ibid, 26-28.
[14] Ibid, 28.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid, 31. An example would be II Sam. 7:14a and the
writer of Hebrews 1:5 applying it to Christ, and not just to Solomon.
[19] Ibid, 33-53. The chart is on page 42, and it includes
the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NASU, TNIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NAB, NJB, GNB, REB, JB,
NLT, NEB, LB, and the Message.
[20] Ibid, 42-43.
[21] Ibid.
[25] Ibid, 50.
[27] Ibid.
[30] Ibid, 89-106. This section includes Genesis, Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Daniel, Jonah, and Haggai. Fee and Stuart then add Exodus, Numbers,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Job contain substantial narrative portions. This
author would add Esther, Deuteronomy, and Jonah to the list.
[32] Ibid, 106; italics added for emphasis.
[33] Ibid, 89; italics are original with the text.
[34] Ibid, 106.
No comments:
Post a Comment