When Misinterpreting the Bible Becomes a Habit
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies ISSN: (Online) 2072-8050, (Print) 0259-9422 Page 1 of 8 Original Research When misinterpreting the Bible becomes a habit Author: Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) texts should be interpreted against the background of the magico- 1 Peet J. van Dyk mythical cosmology of their time, and the Bible is no exception. Earlier scholars were, however, Affiliation: hesitant to recognise this reality as a result of disagreement over how to define myths and 1Department of Biblical and because of the problematic idealistic framework that they followed. This framework viewed Ancient Studies, University biblical religion as superior to other ANE religions and thus devoid of myths and the belief in of South Africa, South Africa magic. It is, however, argued that the Bible contains both myths and a belief in magic and Corresponding author: shares the overarching ANE cosmology. The incompatibility of the scientific cosmology and Peet van Dyk, the magico-mythical cosmology of the ANE causes special problems for modern readers. To [email protected] prevent modern readers from habitually falling back on their scientific cosmology, and thereby misinterpreting the Bible, it is suggested that a cosmological approach should form the basic Dates: Received: 12 Dec. 2017 framework for all biblical hermeneutics. Accepted: 16 Feb. 2018 Published: 11 Apr. 2018 How to cite this article: Introduction Van Dyk, P.J., 2018, The regularity and ease with which modern (post-Renaissance) readers misinterpret ancient ‘When misinterpreting texts is often underestimated by classical scholars. For example, when reading Samuel Butler’s the Bible becomes a habit’, HTS Teologiese Studies/ translation of the Iliad, the modern reader encounters the following passage at the beginning of Theological Studies 74(4), Book IX: ‘But Panic, comrade of blood-stained Rout, had taken fast hold of the Achaeans, and 4898. https://doi.org/ their princes were, all of them, in despair’ [author’s own italics] (Homer 2009). Except for the fact 10.4102/hts.v74i4.4898 that the words Panic and Rout are capitalised by Butler, modern readers could easily be misled to Copyright: think that Homer merely referred to a psychological state of mind among the Greek warriors. © 2018. The Authors. However, in the magico-mythical cosmology of ancient Greece the words Δει˜μος and φόβος were Licensee: AOSIS. This work the personal names of two minor Greek gods, who were supposed to roam battlefields and by is licensed under the Creative Commons their presence create panic and rout among soldiers. At the time of Homer, panic and rout on the Attribution License. battlefield were therefore never seen as natural psychological effects from warfare but always as being caused by the presence of these two gods. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Homer describes almost every earthly event during the Trojan War as the result of the interference of the gods (e.g. in the introduction to the Iliad, Homer explains the origin of the Trojan War as resulting from the fact that the god Apollo wanted to take revenge on the Greeks because they slighted his priest Chryses). However, in line with the increasingly popular allegorical interpretation of the Iliad – a process that started with the philosophers in Ancient Greece – Butler chose to translate the names of the two gods merely as ‘Panic’ and ‘Rout’, thereby obscuring the fact that the text originally referred to two gods.1 He thereby perpetuated the incorrect idea that the text should not be taken literally but rather should be interpreted in a symbolic or allegorical way. The above example illustrates how easy it is for a modern translator (and therefore for his or her readers) to reduce the rich meaning of a text by disregarding its ancient magico-mythical cosmology. The purpose of this article is to ask the question to what extent biblical scholars are also guilty of deliberately or unconsciously misreading the Bible, by ignoring the Bible’s broadest cosmological assumptions and by replacing them with their own default modern suppositions – thus making a habit of misinterpreting the Bible. The reason for such a switching of cosmologies is not necessarily because biblical scholars (especially historical-critical exegetes) are ignorant of the hermeneutical problems involved when reading ancient texts, but because one habitually reverts to one’s own modern conceptual framework, except when consciously and consistently guarding against this error. What makes the danger of misinterpreting the Bible at the Read online: cosmological (and symbolic) levels so potentially calamitous is the fact that it is the broadest Scan this QR possible conceptual framework within which the text is interpreted, and thus it poses the largest code with your smart phone or scope for error. mobile device to read online. 1.It would therefore have been better to retain the Greek names of the two gods in the translated text and add that they were the gods who caused panic and rout on battlefields. http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 2 of 8 Original Research Gadamer’s hermeneutical framework No understanding is possible without interpretation and such interpretation depends on (1) the way in which The hermeneutics of Gadamer and various reader-response we categorise the world within our specific culture and (2) approaches have convincingly shown that in the case of the conceptualisation of our individual mind (Van Wolde ancient texts, meaning can only be constructed when a 2009:55). continual interplay between text and reader takes place (Gadamer 1982:23, 292; Lang n.d.). According to Iser Meaning is therefore facilitated by a vast network of (1972:279), the convergence of text and reader brings the interrelated knowledge that, inter alia, depends on culturally literary work into existence. Gadamer describes this process defined categorisation (Van Wolde 2009:55). Nyirenda (2013) of understanding a text in terms of the horizon of the text summarises the importance of such conceptual frameworks versus the horizon of the reader and proposes that meaning for biblical exegesis as follows: ‘For this reason, scholarship can only be constructed by the fusion of these two horizons. that discusses the probable conceptual frameworks is as He further emphasised the fact that one should constantly critical as pedantic analyses of words, grammar, and syntax remind oneself of the fact that the horizon of an ancient text is for accurate exegesis’. may be completely different from that of the modern reader. Cosmology as an overarching cognitive Within reader-response circles it is often emphasised that framework meaning is constructed and not reconstructed (as assumed by most historical interpretations). In these circles, it is also Conceptual frameworks can be viewed as a hierarchy frequently stated that it is impossible to reconstruct the consisting of a series of smaller to larger (or more overarching) original meaning of the text or the intention of the author cognitive frameworks. The smallest framework would be (Thiselton 1998:38). I believe that both these notions are the individual level of reference, unique to the author or reader. overstatements. In its most extreme form it would imply that The next intermediate level of reference is the framework shared no (or very little) communication between ancient author within a family, clan or various subgroups (e.g. gender, socio- and modern reader is possible. The fact that it is in principle economic status, etc.). An even more inclusive framework is impossible to fully appreciate the original intention of an the shared cognitive frameworks of nations and religions, author does not mean that we can grasp nothing of it. Such while the highest overarching meta-level could be termed a 2 absolutist views are typical of problematic binary thought. cosmology. The cognitive framework of a cosmology is shared by large cultural groups such as the Western world, traditional Meaning can therefore only be constructed after the sense of African communities or the Ancient Near East (ANE). the original text has (as far as possible) been reconstructed by the reader. Both the reconstruction of the original sense In its broadest sense, a cosmology can be defined as the of the text and the subsequent construction of meaning by sum of a community’s shared beliefs and assumptions about the modern reader are therefore necessary when interpreting the world. A cosmology thus acts as a broad conceptual the Bible. To use Gadamer’s terminology: both the horizon framework in terms of which people interpret reality (Van of the text and the horizon of the contemporary reader should der Merwe 2008:57). It includes not only beliefs about what be considered when constructing meaning (Thiselton 1998:8): the cosmos looks like but also how it functions in terms ‘… only if we respect the distinctiveness of the horizons of of causes and effects and, in the case of ancient societies, the text as against the distinctiveness of our own reader- how the society is socially and politically structured. Ancient horizon can a creative and productive interaction of horizons cosmologies were holistic in the sense that the natural and occur’. social environments were integrated within one supposedly interdependent system. For example, kingship was just as Within the broad hermeneutical framework of Gadamer, much part of the divinely ordained structure of the cosmos as several additional notions need to be clarified. One such the placements of the stars.