Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views

Spectrum Multiview

by Stanley E. Porter (Editor), Beth M. Stovall (Editor), Craig L. Blomberg (Contributor)

Five experts in biblical hermeneutics gather here to state and defend their approach to the discipline. Contributors include: Craig Blomberg with the historical-critical/grammatical approach, Richard Gaffin with the redemptive-historical approach, Scott Spencer with the literary/postmodern approach, Robert Wall with the canonical approach and Merold Westphal with the philosophical/theological approach.

Genres: Theology, Biblical Studies, Christian, Nonfiction, Christianity, Faith, Philosophy

224 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 1, 2012

About the author

Stanley E. Porter (PhD, University of Sheffield) is president, dean, and professor of New Testament, and Roy A. Hope Chair in Christian Wolrdview at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario. He has authored or edited dozens of books, including How We Got the New Testament and Fundamentals of New Testament Greek.

Reviews

[Guillaume Bourin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I particularly appreciate Richard Gaffin's critique of Blomberg's critical-historical view. Very helpful for me to refine my own position.
Critical-historical tools, however, should be used in light of the history of redemption.

[Mark Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Biblical Hermeneutics has been written to “provide new insights into biblical hermeneutics and how such interpretive models might aid in biblical understanding and interpretation.” (p.8) The editors of the book, Stanley E. Porter and Beth M. Stovell have compiled five views of hermeneutics. Each view has been written by a reputable teacher of the Bible. The editors are also Bible professors, and their vision or purpose for the readers is to “join the diversity of hermeneutical theories (and their proponents) together in a unified purpose.” (P. 210) The vision for unity is a nice idea, but as it is, two hermeneutical methodologies that are different cannot simultaneously be correct. Therefore, it may be helpful to look at other ideas, but progress nor unity is dependent on accepting methods that do not correctly interpret the Scriptures.

Craig Blomberg explains the first method, the Historical-Critical/Grammatical view. Blomberg is the distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary in Litleton Colorado. (P. 211) Blombergs view is quite appropriate, and in spite of the other readings, remains the preferred method, for at least one. Blomberg writes, “if all we do is take the Bible’s claims at face value without examination, plenty of people will render very different verdicts on the nature of its formation and its resulting credibility (or incredibility) and we will have no reply!” He describes his view as “both analytical and evaluative, based on common ground shared with the skeptic. (P. 37) A bold approach, and perhaps may even result in criticism by others, but this method will lead a student into a sincere understanding of Scripture, rather than a fable handed down by religious parents. This truth is precisely what makes a unified whole of different hermeneutical methods impossible. Regarding history and grammar Blomberg writes, “the historical setting must be analyzed in which a given communicative act occurs. This involves general information about who is speaking to whom, where, when and under what circumstances… at its most basic level, grammatical analysis is necessary because the biblical text does not come to us in our own native tongue.” (P. 37) Such careful examination of Scriptures will help all believers to better understand and apply the Scriptures. Improper hermeneutics can never lead to proper application.

Scott Spencer holds to the Literary/Postmodern View. Spencer is professor of New Testament and preaching at Baptist Theological seminary in Richmond, Virginia. (P. 212)It is unclear whether or not Spencer holds to the inerrancy of Scriptures. He pokes fun at the variances in the existing manuscripts. (P. 50) It is possible that the last remark may be an overstatement, yet he makes other troubling statements. Spencer writes, “The last few decades have witnessed an explosion of distinctive New Testament readings from various grass-roots as well as academic Asian, Latin American and African perspectives, complementing-and often counterpointing-more traditional Western viewpoints. Such “other” readers tend to lay their social and ideological cards on the table and respectfully insist that others do the same, since we all bring our baggage, for good and ill, to the meaning-making experience. Hiding under a smug cloak of alleged objectivity is getting harder to justify, and it sometimes makes it harder to carry on a civil conversation.” (P. 55)

He suggests an open text, and writes in this worldview, “an open Bible does not merely allow for multiple readings, it intrinsically demands them!” There is no doubt that others may interpret the Scriptures differently. However, if everyone interpreted the Bible using this method it would be hard to be objective about anything. And, if you cannot be objective about anything, what is the point of studying at all? The objection lies not in discussing differences for the purpose of edification, but in looking for specific distinctions. Why has it become difficult to justify objectivity? There has been no new revelation, God has not expounded on his Word, and it remains the same. The implication that contemporary culture now dictates what the Scriptures say, or does not say, is offensive. Spencer’s quote is very near an insult to anyone who holds to objective truth.

Merold Westphall writes about the Philosophical/Theological View. Westphall “is distinguished professor of philosophy emeritus at Fordham University in New York, adjunct professor at Australian Catholic University in Australia, and guest professor at Wuhan University in China.” (P. 212) Westphall writes, “there are three things that philosophical hermeneutics is not. First, it is not just about interpreting the Bible… is not restricted to interpreting texts… is not a method of strategy for interpreting. It is a how-to discipline with rules or at least heuristics to follow.” (P.70- 71)

Westphall’s three premises neglect any real interpretation. The first premise undergirds the whole, and contradicts the purpose, Biblical interpretation. The foundation for hermeneutics simply is the correct interpretation of the Bible. Westphall argues that in man’s finiteness there cannot be any absolute, and therefore by nature everything is relative; the desire to be absolute is an attempt to be God. (P. 82) He has constructed a straw man by misinterpretation of, and fallacious application of Isaiah 14.13-14. Very few interpreters, if any, make or want to make objective claims about everything. However, he writes a very good observation of 21st century preaching, “a repetition of some very general truths which, in the absence of any detectable relation to the text, tend to become platitudes, providing neither comfort nor challenge.” (P.85)

Richard B. Gaffin Jr. “is professor of biblical and systematic theology emeritus at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.” (P. 211) Gaffin explains the Redemptive-Historical View. The danger in holding this view is the possibility of trying to interpret all Scripture through the lenses of Christ’s redemptive work. It is known that God’s best revelation has been provided in His Son. And, that truth, undeniable, has been recorded in the Scriptures. (Hebrews 1.1-2) Gaffin writes, “biblical revelation faithfully records the actual history of special revelation. That history, in turn, is unified as the ongoing interpretation of redemptive history, which centered, on Christ, unfolds organically, like a maturing organism… redemptive-historical interpretation is marked by a sense of continuity between the interpreter today and the New Testament writers… New Testament writers and their interpreters share a common concern in their subject matter, the history of redemption.” (P. 98-99) It would be nice to interpret the Scriptures through the redemptive work of Christ. It would be nice to only recognize the love and compassionate work of redemption. In reality there are many aspects to the person of Christ, judgment for example. Christ tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures speak of Him, with authority this truth can be repeated. But, he never suggested that readers interpret the Scriptures through His redemptive work. The writer of Hebrews implies that Christ was the best revelation of God, but the writer never suggests to only interpret the Scriptures in the light of one event. The New Testament writers were writing to specific people for a specific reason. Contemporary Christians may share commonalities with saints of the past, but this truth is not a good reason to interpret Scriptures through the redemptive work of Christ. One can learn a great deal about God through the redemptive work of Christ. But, there will be many things overlooked if the Scriptures are interpreted through one single event in human history.

Robert W. Wall explains the Canonical View. Wall “is the Paul T. Walls professor of Scripture and Wesleyan Studies at Seattle Pacific University in Seattle, Washington. He is coeditor of The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition (Baylor) and the New Testament coeditor of the Wesley Study Bible (Abingdon).” (P. 212) Wall suggests that the “real task of Scripture is the formation of Christian disciples for today’s world.” (P. 115) Scripture can develop Christians, but Scripture also reveals redemption and brings people to a saving knowledge of Christ. He also implies that the Scriptures are best read and understood when read chronologically. Perhaps, but reading the Pentateuch would never help a young believer to understand the complexity of adoption or sanctification. Wall kept referring to teachers, there seemed to be an implication that the responsibility of hermeneutics has been given to certain people. This violates the truth of believer priests and personal anointing (teaching) of the Holy Spirit for individuals.

The editors compiled these essays to reconcile the differences of people, and hermeneutics. However, it does not matter how slight the differences are. Things that are different cannot be the same, and both cannot be correct. It has been difficult to understand all the complexities of each view. But, after reading this book, it is clear that there can be no presuppositions when approaching the Bible. The only safe premise is II Timothy 3.16-17.

All quotations are taken from Stanley E. Porter, Beth M. Stovall, Craig L. Blomberg, F. Scott Spencer, Robert W. Wall, Merold Westphal, Biblical Hermeneutics, Five Views. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. 2012

[Clayton Hashley · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good intro to some of the main ways to do biblical hermeneutics. Some parts were a bit over my head, but I kept up for the most part. Good explanations that made me want to explore the following issues:
1. How can I interpret New Testament use of Old Testament texts (intentional prophecy, allusion, accidental prophecy, some combo of all of these???)
2. What practical strategies help me to gain appropriate historical-critical analyses of Bible passages that include historical, archaeological, and literary context.
3. What is the relationship between the development of early church doctrine and the composition of the Bible? This seems like a VERY important concept that I know next to nothing about.

Some notes:

- “The grammatico-historical method, on the other hand, refers to studying the biblical text, or any other text, in its original historical con-text, and seeking the meaning its author(s) most likely intended for its original audience(s) or addressees based on the grammar and syntax.”
- “I said at the outset of this chapter that I was not trying to defend the historical-critical/grammatical method as the sole legitimate approach among the five hermeneutical approaches that this book presents but that I would argue for its logical priority. Without an anchor in the historical context and the original meanings of words and grammatical structures, literary/postmodern methods have few checks and balances. As some have insisted, the only two criteria for a good interpretation (for there are then no longer any "correct" interpretations) then become creativity or cleverness and consistency or coherence. In other words, one seeks an interpretation that is fun to read and worthy of admiration and that does not contradict itself internally at any point. Whether or not it corresponds to any external reality becomes irrelevant.”
- “Accordingly in interpreting the Bible he calls for a double hermeneutic corresponding to two questions. The first hermeneutic asks, "What did the human author say to the original audience?" The second hermeneutic asks, "What is God saying to us here and now through these words of Scripture?"
- “The conclusion of philosophical hermeneutics is that we need not flee the relativity of interpretation and the plurality it entails, partly because it is an inescapable product of the human condition and partly because it can be enriching. We do not have to deny the existence of weeds to say, "let many flowers bloom.”
- The term "fulfil" in both Greek and Hebrew can mean to "fill full" that is, to invest with fuller meaning just as easily as it can mean that a prophesied event has now occurred … Some New Testament texts, it is true, do declare that an Ole Testament author understood christological significance in what he wit thomulgating, but no biblical text ever implies that all or even met ot them did. Again, we must examine each passage one by one rather than make sweeping generalizations.”
- “Diversity of interpretations is important because all of us are finite and fallen, and we miss things and misconstrue things. Yet reveling in diversity simply for diversity's sake, or using diversity as an occasion to celebrate an interpreter's creativity, is not a Christian virtue.”
- “"Had [Hosea] been able to see Matthew's use of 11:1, he would not have disapproved, even if messianic nuances were not in his mind when he wrote that verse" (p. 31 n. 14). That may be true, but how can we possibly know what Hosea might have approved or disapproved of eight centuries later? Like most of the prophets, he was a strange bird. It is hard enough to decide what he meant in his own context! Here my liter-ary/postmodern view pushes harder to maintain strangeness and distance between Hosea and Matthew, to let each text stand on its own and enter into full-throated, tension-fraught dialogue with the other.”
- “These three major avenues of understanding are (1) identifying the role and context of the author, the text, the readers both ancient and modern, and the biblical interpreter; (2) allowing for literary integrity and diversity, as well as interpretive integrity and diversity, by identifying literary features of the text and acknowledging the larger narrative of the overall biblical account, while balancing this with awareness of the specificity of the biblical culture(s); and (3) acknowledging the vital role of faith in interpretation, both as influential for our interpretation and as constructive for theological and ethical implications.”

[Matthew Christian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too much emphasis on NT texts

[Johnny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stanley E. Porter was an outstanding choice to put together a panel on the history and methods of biblical hermeneutics for the creation of Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views. Porter himself is a respected biblical interpreter who is not afraid to experiment with literary criticism in many forms. But what is particularly good about this volume is that he primarily sets the stage for five different perspectives, merely proffering guidance on the foundational structure for how the viewpoints would be presented and, presumably, selecting the representative scholars to represent each perspective.

Historical Critical: The historical-critical perspective is ably represented by the talented and prolific Craig Blomberg. Blomberg doesn’t attack the other approaches, but he states his position clearly: “I am convinced that all of the other approaches must build on the historical-critical/grammatical approach in order to function legitimately.” (p. 28) In answer to those who say that authorial intention is nearly impossible to determine, Blomberg reminds us: “It is very unlikely that the originally intended meaning of the message whether written or oral, could be something that an original audience couldn’t possibly have conceived.” (p. 30)
I also appreciated the fact that Blomberg was honest about ideological spin. “The idea of preserving a dispassionate chronicle of events for posterity—with no necessary lessons to be learned from it—is largely a modern invention.” (p. 33) That being said, however, Blomberg goes on to suggest that: “Source, form and redaction criticism form a natural triad of disciplines that are often treated together.” (pp. 33-34). Further, “…the chronological sequence in which to consider them is form, source and redaction criticism.” (p. 34). Using the first four verses of Luke’s gospel as an example of establishing the form behind the text, he goes on to describe Luke’s verification as providing an account. “The most common meaning of the Greek word behind “account” (diēgēsis) is a written narrative of some kind.” (p. 35). So, moving from the initial form of the account, one attempts to determine the sources of said accounts. Then redaction criticism examines the rationale behind the way the portions have been woven together. Blomberg rightly admits the danger in this approach can seem to put one above the text (p. 36), but notes that close reading of the grammatical aspects of the text should protect against that. Once that groundwork is established, one moves to the grammatical portion of interpretation. He defines this as, “…interpretation that focuses on the meanings of words; the analysis of grammar; and the structure of phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and increasingly larger units of thought up to the level of an entire book. (p. 37). But the bottom line for Blomberg is: “Without an anchor in the historical context and the original meanings of words and grammatical structures, literary/postmodern methods have few checks and balances. (p. 41). In reading the chapters by advocates of the other approaches, however, I believe he may have overstated the divorce from the historical base even to be found, for example, in postmodernism.
In his response to this, Spencer celebrated Blomberg’s emphasis on oral development which, in turn, should enlighten his own literary/postmodern approach. “Blomberg helpfully reminds us of the ancient oral culture in which the biblical texts first developed, a phenomenon that my heavily “literate” literary/postmodern approach tends to neglect and needs to take more seriously in light of recent scholarship.” (p. 146) And I also appreciate his awareness that interpretation’s work can be prematurely finished and satisfied with the historical-critical methodology alone. He writes of the need: “…for readers not simply to exploit biblical texts for their own aims but to engage these ideologically (theologically) motivated accounts in rigorous, respectful dialogue.” (p. 147).
Further, I think Westphal has an important point when he challenges Blomberg not to make the exegesis be the “be all and end all” of interpretation. I thought Westphal’s challenge was particularly well-said as: “The constraint that needs to be honored is not limiting biblical meaning to its original meaning, thereby reducing interpretation to exegesis, but allowing original meaning to be a constraint, a guardrail, against reducing the biblical text to a Rorschach inkblot onto which we can project anything we find in our personal or collective psyche. That is a real danger, as the history of theology testifies.” (p. 164) I also think his later contention is useful: “If our theologies are to take the textual character of the Bible seriously, it is not clear that grammatical analysis of the communication between the author and the original audience is more fundamental than the literary strategies (narrative structure, allusions, figures of speech, etc.) employed by the author to communicate to the original audience.” (p. 169). I tend to agree that the communication strategy and technique is part of the inspired communication (even if not executed consciously).

Literary/Postmodern: Scott Spencer, a New Testament scholar at Baptist Theological Seminar of Richmond, Virginia, presents a literary/postmodern perspective. Though many interpreters become concerned about the deconstruction and postmodern aspects of this method, Spencer quotes David Seeley’s assertion: “The point of deconstruction is not to make nonsense of a text, but to locate structural, systemic faultlines within it…” (p. 57). Spencer contends that this approach and historical-critical analysis can work side-by-side. He demonstrates this in his summary where he speaks of working in centrifugal fashion from the text, inside-out. “We begin by closely concentrating on the linguistic, stylistic, structural, and thematic elements of the final text under investigation.” (p. 68) From there, one widens out to consider significant cotexts as well as intertexts. Next, the move is to: “…informative contexts in the surrounding rhetorical and cultural environments, and finally, to expansive horizons of different readers from diverse social locations and power positions,…” (p. 68) Of course, from there, one drills back in centripetally to the challenge of interpreting the text.

Some have criticized this approach as being not just as “open text,” but being too wide-open. Even Spencer addresses this in a response to Wall’s essay: “Secular literary and historical critics may offer keen insights into biblical interpretation, but I would argue—on literary and historical grounds—that their value is limited to the extent they do not appreciate the fundamental nature of biblical texts as religious literature historically produced, preserved and practiced as sacred Scripture in the life of the church.” (p. 152).

Redemptive-Historical: Richard Gaffin of Westminster Theological Seminary presents the redemption-historical approach so popular within the Reformed tradition. The simplistic way of looking at this approach to interpretation is to suggest that it forces Christ into every approach. It is, essentially, the approach I learned from childhood, but I became ever more concerned that it didn’t make sense to me that the Holy Spirit would have inspired a text in, say, the 10th century BCE, if it’s real meaning was simply a type of Christ. Of course, neither the model for this approach, Geerhardus Vos, or Gaffin are as extreme as I once thought. Indeed, Vos wrote: ““It is certainly not without significance that God has embodied the contents of revelation, not in a dogmatic system, but in a book of history, the parallel to which in dramatic interest and simple eloquence is nowhere to be found”; and, “The Bible is not a dogmatic handbook but a historical book full of dramatic interest.” (p. 90) I agree with the emphasis on special revelation as divided into two basic modes: deed revelation and word revelation (p. 91) while not negating the context of general revelation.
Redemptive revelation is historical, but a historical sequence leading up to the ultimate historical revelation in Christ: “[Redemptive revelation] has its truth and validity as it occurs in history, as multiple historical events that together constitute an organically unfolding whole, a completed history.” (p. 91) In parallel with the historical veracity of redemptive revelation, “Verbal revelation is always focused on or oriented toward God’s activity in history as Creator and Redeemer.” (p. 92) Hence, “Biblical interpretation is not autonomous assessment of a distanced textual datum but receptive appropriation of the God-authored preinterpretation of redemptive history consummated in Christ, preinterpretation that includes the revelation of his will for loving service to him and others.” (pp. 93-94)

My problem with this approach comes with Gaffin’s insistence that the original author must have intended exactly what the New Testament author may have reinterpreted it as in the light of further history and revelation. If one takes inspiration seriously, the original author doesn’t have to have understood everything God eventually intended with the text. Just as many of us believe that God accommodated the limited science of earlier writers with a broad poetic description of natural phenomena to meet their needs, so could God have accommodated Old Testament prophecies to general understandings suitable for the prophets’ contemporaries while being written in broad enough strokes to be interpreted specifically in Jesus Christ as ultimate Messiah. Interestingly, the response from Blomberg expressed my misgiving more thoroughly: “If part of accepting the entire canon of Scripture as inspired and authoritative means that we can use the New Testament to interpret the Old (or, more generally, later Scripture to interpret earlier texts), then there is no need to insist that the first author had the later writer’s meaning in mind. Because the later text is “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16), that alone makes its interpretation correct and profitable, irrespective of the earlier text’s intention.” (p. 141) Particularly well-said was Blomberg’s follow-up observation quoting R. Schipper’s article in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: “The term “fulfill” in both Greek and Hebrew can mean to “fill full”—that is, to invest with fuller meaning—just as easily as it can mean that a prophesied event has now occurred.” (p. 142)

Spencer is alarmed at the unidirectional nature of this approach. He writes in his response: “another, I think the rest of us in this volume would not drive our hermeneutical views down such a hard-and-fast one-way street, allowing more space for distinctive, if not necessarily disjunctive, Old Testament highways and side roads.” (p. 154) While admiring the “ultimate” Christocentric focus of this methodology, I have seen Spencer’s fears in tangible methodology during my early experiences in sitting under Southern Baptist preaching. Wall’s response also underscores this concern, though it is written in a more general form: “My evaluation is ongoing, but my hunch is that the differences between Christian interpreters are often less a matter of methodological or epistemological disagreements and more a matter of their confessional differences.” (p. 195) That is a bold assessment, but likely accurate.

Westphal also worries about the danger of creating an overarching continuity that ignores differences. His response notes: “…one wonders whether this theological continuity does not need to be held in tension with historical-cultural-linguistic discontinuity. Is it not the case that the desert fathers, the Geneva Calvinists, the American slaves and the contemporary Amish live in different historical-cultural-linguistic worlds that show up and should show up as discontinuities in their biblical interpretation?” (p. 166).
As for Gaffin’s response to the other approaches, I found it utterly defensive and unnecessarily supernaturalist. Yet, I do agree with one major point he made in summary: “Methodology and doxology are not at odds, at least not necessarily.” (p. 186) I agree. I just don’t like some of the parts of the battlefield upon which he chose to fight his academic battle.

Canonical: Since the groundbreaking emphasis on canonical criticism by Brevard Childs, one fertile approach has been the study of relationships within the canon as advocated by Robert Wall of Seattle-Pacific University. Wall immediately asserts that the canonical interpreter is still concerned with doing the historical-textual work: “The aim of faithful exegesis is not to hunt down “the” normative meaning of a text based on what the author intended or first readers apprehended; rather, the aim is to address a text’s lack of clarity as a major cause of its misuse or nonuse among its present interpreters.” (p. 113) Clarity, therefore, is a key. As with the Gregory the Great quotation that keeps appearing in this volume (about scripture growing with us), Wall clearly recognizes: “The linguistic priority of the exegetical task does expose the inherent elasticity of words and their grammatical relationships. Further changes in the perception of a text’s meaning may result from new evidence and different exegetical strategies and from interpreters shaped by diverse social and theological locations.” (p. 114). But the canonical interpreter knows that the church is where the real fruit of her or his industry will be produced: “The canonical approach employs all the tools of modern criticism, but the aim of their skillful use is to make believers wise for understanding salvation and mature for every good work (see 2 Tim 3:15-17).” (p. 115)

One of the key differences between traditional historical-critical work and that of the canonical critic is that historical critics tend to dissect texts into fragments and spend most of their energy in treating them as fragments. Wall reminds the reader that canonical criticism spends most of their energy in understanding the biblical canon as a whole (p. 116). This does not mean that the canonical critic doesn’t use form criticism to identify pieces and redaction criticism to consider how these pieces were assembled, but it means that it pays more attention to the final product. In this way, for example, “When the believer speaks of the biblical canon as a sanctified “place” into which we come to hear God’s word, one can also speak of a sanctified “placement” in which collections are arranged (and perhaps individual writings within them) to articulate God’s word in the way that it can be heard best.” (p. 118)

Blomberg’s response to Wall is accurate as far as it goes, but I think he oversteps in his criticism of Wall’s observations on “shaped text,” the idea that new interpretations may be developed from canonical juxtapositions of texts. Blomberg asserts: “When Wall uses Luke’s infancy narrative to interpret Matthew’s, however, he juxtaposes texts that first-century readers, as far as we know, would never have juxtaposed.” (p. 144) Yet, just as he responded to Gaffin that the original author didn’t need to know all possible interpretive extrapolations for the Holy Spirit to use them, even so, canonical criticism should not be reduced to only the 1st century understanding. True, we must build on the bedrock of that understanding, but as part of the receptive history of a text, those later juxtapositions of scripture are important, as well.

As impressed as I was with Wall’s essay, I was puzzled by one thing that Spencer observed in his response to the canonical approach (as presented by Wall): “I find it curious, given Wall’s earlier stress on Matthew’s priority leading into Mark, that he makes no comment concerning Mark’s jumping right into Jesus’ adult vocation.” (p. 151) In addition, I was forced to consider the validity of Wesphal’s concern that Wall and the canonical critics may not be concerned enough with the original meaning: “…what the text ‘plainly says.’ ‘Plainly’ can hardly mean ‘immediately obvious.’ Otherwise we would not have so much conflict in interpretation, and it would not be necessary to speak of the consensus that exegesis seeks as a goal, presumably not yet in hand.” (p. 172)
I did feel that the clarification in approach that Wall provided in response to Gaffin is important to understand regarding canonical criticism as Childs and Wall practice(d) it: “…advocates of the canonical approach follow Karl Barth’s typology of biblical witness, which carefully makes the distinction that Scripture is not identical to the divine revelation but bears witness to the divine revelation.” (p. 198).

Philosophical/Theological: Finally, since there is a philosophical tradition of hermeneutics represented by Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur (among others), Merold Westphal of Fordham University argues for a philosophical/theological approach. Unlike the other contributors to this volume, Westphal’s essay doesn’t offer even a modicum of direction in terms of applying his hermeneutic. He quotes from Gadamer to justify this absence: “The task “is not to develop a procedure of understanding, but to clarify the conditions in which understanding takes place. But these conditions do not amount to a ‘procedure’ or method which the interpreter must of himself bring to bear on the text; rather they must be given.” (p. 71). To be sure, even I would agree that proper interpretation is more of an art than a science, but even an artificial flow-chart reflecting some of the numerous facets to be explored in this methodology would have been helpful. On the other hand, some of the quotations and illustrations in this chapter are quite insightful. For example, I liked his perception of the hermeneutical circle as akin to a basketball player on offense and one one defense. Both the text and the interpreter “react” to each other (p. 72).

One almost believes Westphal is evoking quantum mechanics when he writes: “Our inextricable embeddedness within history and its traditions means that our interpretations arise from particular locations. We are always somewhere (in semantic and cognitive space) and never achieve what has been called ‘the view from nowhere.’ Just as in ordinary vision, where we are standing determines what we can see and what we cannot see of the object at which we are looking. This embeddedness means that understanding is necessarily plural, partial and perspectival.” (p. 74). However, the concern is simply stated: “…what we want to understand is not something hidden behind the text, but something disclosed in front of it.” (p. 76) [Out of room]

[Nate Claiborne · Rating 4 out of 5]

If I were to take a stand on the spectrum after reading this book, I would probably include elements of each contributor. I was trained in Blomberg's method, but like him, see the need for theological insights in the interpretive process. I would probably most strongly combine Blomberg and Gaffin then, with a sprinkling of Westphal. I'm not crazy about Spencer's postmodern literary approach, but I like some of his insights. I think some literary sensibilities would compliment a Blomberg/Gaffin approach. Doing that leaves you with a hermeneutical triad of sorts, which is just what Andreas Kostenberger and Richard Patterson argue for in Invitation to Biblical Interpretation.

In the end, I would highly recommend this installment in the Spectrum Multiviews series, and will look forward to the next one coming later this fall!

For the full review, visit my blog

[Robin · Rating 2 out of 5]

A roller coaster read

This book is a roller coaster read, as each writer is assigned a view and asked to write on it.
Some are very good and clear, sadly some write to impress themselves using word that Dictionaries will tell us 1in a million times this word might be used this way.
If you never have to read this book then spend you time reading something more exciting

[Benjamin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book serves as a good quick introduction to a number of hermeneutical systems. While each is presented briefly and without too much complication, it is nevertheless an academic book and would likely be a bit of a challenge for those not familiar with the issues and terms surrounding biblical hermeneutics. I found the choice of representatives for each approach interesting in that each one represents a more moderate version than some of their colleagues in each respective approach. This is likely intentional as the closing chapter by the editor (Porter) shows in his suggestion to combine insights from all the systems.

The five approaches in the book are the historical-critical/grammatical, redemptive historical, postmodern/literary, philosophical, and canonical critical. What was most interesting in each was not necessarily the brief descriptions of each approach, but their attempt to apply their approaches to the same passage of Scripture. Unfortunately, the response chapters (each authors responds to the other 4 contributors) in the second half were too short to engage deeply. Again, it's meant to be an introduction, but some of the responses seemed to be talking past what the other contributors actually wrote and/or responding to straw men.

For those interesting in a quick into into various hermeneutical approaches, it offers and interesting and practical way to do it, but it is certainly not the most thorough treatment.

[Timothy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is primarily a scholarly and academic work that I needed to read for a master's class that I am taking. It was a very difficult book to understand, particularly for that reason. What was said could have been said differently so that the readers can understand it better.
A humorous note, it's interesting that this book is on the five views of biblical hermeneutics and yet the message about those five views of interpretation was as difficult if not more so to understand and interpret as the Bible can be.
I would like to give this book a high rating because I was very impressed by the academic nature and rhetoric. However, I don't feel that I learned as much as I would have liked to. I told my wife that I think I would need to read through the book a second time to really understand it, but that I'm not going to.

[Simon Field · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful yet frustrating at times. It can be easy to view this book as if five mutually exclusive hermeneutical views are being put forward. Instead, the authors acknowledge that this is far from the case. One view- philosophical hermeneutics- rightly doesn't engage with the exegesis of Matthew 2 on the grounds that their perspectives provides insights regarding assumptions that inform exegesis over a method of exegesis.

Gaffin and Blomberg's chapters are great. Fantastic to see how both the redemptive-historical view and grammatical view complement each other yet at times claim too much ground for themselves.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is what it is. Five different ways to read your Bible.

The only view really worth your time is the first one: Literal/Grammatical.

Post-Modern is absolute craziness.

Philosophical/Theological is post-modern but with a fancy hat.

Historical-Redemptive sounds good, but becomes allegorical when every Bible verse must make a DIRECT reference to Christ.

Canonical is doing what the church tells you.

[Zac Masters · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful book, but I expected 5 mostly mutually exclusive approaches to interpretation, the views however were mostly about what methods to give primacy to in interpretation (allowing some room for the other approaches). I suspect each author's focus was influenced by their academic fields of interest more than anything.

A good synthesis of the ideas in this volume is 'Invitation to Biblical Interpretation' by Kostenberger and his hermeneutical triad.

[Christian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great overview. I would have loved a section talking about TiS though. Ultimately this is a helpful starting point for different hermeneutical models, their presuppositions and how they actually interpret a passage.

[Andrew Krom · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was not what I expected. The views in this book that are more "liberal" seemed to have more conservative scholars representing their view. The two editors seemed to have the most liberal views of all! Overall, this was a helpful book, it just left me wanting for more clarity.

[Richard Mounce · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good survey.

[Joel Zartman · Rating 2 out of 5]

What a strange collection.

[Daniel Nelms · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for my current MA program at LTS. Helpful read to see scholars interact with one another according their various interpretive approaches.

[Matthew Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Limited by the short length of each essay, but useful for understanding the different emphases in biblical interpretation.

[Craig Hurst · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the general definition of hermeneutics as the art and science of biblical interpretation may be given a casual head nod in the affirmative by most interpreters, it should not be assumed that those doing so agree on the mechanics of the of the art and science of hermeneutics. That is, there is general agreement that hermeneutics has an art and science to it but not what they look like in practice. So while many may look to hermeneutics to provide guidance and constraints for responsible biblical interpretation, one quickly finds out that there are plenty of options to consider, some of which take the interpreter down seemingly very different paths.

In order to help us sketch the hermeneutical landscape, Stanley Porter and Beth Stovell have brought together representatives of five different hermeneutical methods in the new book Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views. The contributors are as follows: Craig L. Blomberg presents the Historical-Critical/Grammatical method, F. Scott Spencer the Literary/Postmodern method, Merold Westphal the Philosophical/Theological method, Richard B. Gaffin Jr. the Redemptive-Historical method and Robert W. Wall with the Canonical method.

The aim of this book is to allow each contributor to present their hermeneutical view and then apply it to Matthew 2:7-15. Instead of listing the responses to each contributor after each chapter, all of the views are presented first and then each contributor has a separate response chapter in which they successively respond to the other views. The conclusion of the book wraps up with a look at how each view presented contributes to the hermeneutical task.

There are several things that stand out about the contents of the book. First, while each contributor takes a different view, each is committed to taking the authority of Scripture seriously on its own terms, though they end up in different places at times. There is general agreement that the approaches presented are not mutually exclusive.

Second, though each contributor I committed to the validity of their view, all recognize value of the other views. Blomberg is perhaps the most vocal about this fact but contends “that all of the other approaches must build on the historical-critical/grammatical approach in order to function legitimately. (p. 28)” He further states, “It is the necessary foundation on which all other approaches must build. (p. 47; see also pg. 145)”

Third, because each view makes a contribution to the hermeneutical process (some more than others), one can see a clearer picture of the text as each method is employed. One question might be, ��Would it be possible to eventually get to all of the hermeneutical insights presented through the lens of one view?” Another question might be, “Is each method presented truly a distinguishable method?” In other words, do some methods just merely ask questions and ways looking at the text that can be legitimately used by any of the other methods, thus enveloping the method into another? I am personally partial the Historical-Critical/Grammatical and Redemptive-Historical approaches. However, in reading the other three views, I find that I have always asked some of the questions they do about the text, author and reader.

Finally, all of the contributors rightly recognize that hermeneutics involves understanding something about the world behind, in and in front of the text. The meaning of the text does not just fly off the pages and into the mind of the reader. Neither does, nor can, the text mean anything we want it to mean. The text has limits and hermeneutics is the guardrails protecting the interpreter from misusing and abusing the text for their own purposes.

Biblical Hermeneutics is a great introduction to five of the most used hermeneutical methods employed. I wonder if time will tell as to the longevity of the Literary/Postmodern and Philosophical/Theological views as they are newer to the scene. The methods with the greatest influence and deepest history are the Historical-Critical/Grammatical and Redemptive-Historical and I believe that will do nothing but continue despite the criticism leveled against them.

NOTE: I received this book for free from IVP and was under no obligation to provide a favorable review. The words and thoughts expressed in this review are mine.

[Todd Miles · Rating 3 out of 5]

This five views book provides a valuable summmary of the different hermeneutical options that are taught and employed in the church and academy. All of the authors fall somewhere on the evangelical spectrum. Each essay is helpful in communicating the motivations and core commitments of each of the hermeneutics espoused. Though I found myself in strongest agreement with Gaffin's redemptive historical approach and to a slightly lesser degree Blomberg's historical-critical/grammatical approach (his source criticism commitments are needless and confusing), I was helped by Wall's canonical approach (see my frustration with source criticism above). Even Spencer's literary-postmodern approach was instructive (though I disagree that questions of application are fundamental to the quest for meaning - we cannot rightly apply until we rightly understand the meaning). Another strength of the book was that they were instructed to demonstrate the fruit of their hermeneutic on the same biblical text (Matthew 2:13-15) - though Westphal's philosophical/theological approach did not lend itself to such application (calling into question, in my mind, the usefulness, if not the legitimacy, of his hermeneutic). This allowed differences in theory to become (the more easily understood) differences in practice. The weakest part of the volume was the response section, where each author responded to the contributions of the others. In most multiple views books, such interaction is very helpful, but I did not find that to be the case in this volume.

[Don Henrikson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this as an assignment. The book is a helpful book for the reader (like me) who wishes to gain some familiarity with some of the various hermeneutic approaches to the interpretation of Scripture. The authors each explain their position and then apply it to Matthew 2:13-15, with one exception. The writer on Philosophical/Theological Hermeneutics described his hermeneutic to be detached from interpretive rules and thus did not tackle the passage. The response were perhaps the most interesting reading, though the writers occasionally responded to their own perceptions of other views instead of the chapters written on those views. Overall, a helpful text.

[Adam Shields · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short review: This is a book that is in the uncomfortable middle of being too technical and academic for the casual reader and not focused and specific enough for the academic. I like that each of the five perspectives were asked to work through a specific portion of scripture, which is helpful. Overall it is not a bad book, just not clear who the intended audience really is.

My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/biblical-hermeneutics/

[Carrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent source to revealing the world behind, of and in front of the text. It is wonderful to witness the collaborative spirit of biblical scholars and yet would have hoped they used a different primary text that Hosea 11:1Extremely lacking more women voices although Merold Westphal includes Barbara Green and Athalya Brenner. Thank you, Merold!

[Chuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

Incredibly helpful in sorting out these various views. Helpful chapters and then critiques. Fair and yet honest criticism of each other's views. Interesting illustration from Matthew 2 that undergirds and illustrates the principles of each approach.

I found this clarifying in a variety of ways--especially helpful to see the views laid side by side.

Worth the time to read.

[Vanjr · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very important book that looks at how we read and understand the Bible from 5 evangelical viewpoints. All five authors bring up important points that should be considered and used. I find it quite interesting that most churches spend little to no time on this important topic. Every church should spend a significant amount of time on this.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book written by a great list of scholars. I think every perspective can and should be utilized, although Westphal’s is more second-order (hermenetuics) while the other contributions are more first order (exegesis).

[Luke Todd · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent book, but would have enjoyed seeing 5 views that had more in common. The fifth view wasn't even a view, but a helpful overview of the philosophy of interpretation.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the main things I learned reading this was not to take for granted the precious evangelical doctrine of Scripture. It's a crazy world out there. The conversation of the book deals with critical, philosophical, canonical and theological points of view in a way that's very helpful.