The Context Of Scripture

[Tribunal]

I've been reading some discussions/arguments/debates about scriptural context and it has caused me to wonder:

How does a student of Scripture [like me!] learn the context behind the scripture an author wrote? Should I learn the history, language, politics, and culture of the author? Would that do or is there more? Does it really matter?

Also, how does current understanding of Scripture differ from those in Adam's time, or Moses', or Christ's, or Lehi's, or Joseph Smith's?

Can someone, anyone, point me in the right direction?

[volgadon]

Should I learn the history, language, politics, and culture of the author?

Of course.

[Kevin Christensen]

I've been reading some discussions/arguments/debates about scriptural context and it has caused me to wonder:

How does a student of Scripture [like me!] learn the context behind the scripture an author wrote? Should I learn the history, language, politics, and culture of the author? Would that do or is there more? Does it really matter?

Also, how does current understanding of Scripture differ from those in Adam's time, or Moses', or Christ's, or Lehi's, or Joseph Smith's?

Can someone, anyone, point me in the right direction?

Read books that seriously attempt to contextualize the scriptures. Nibley's Lehi in the Desert was a pioneering effort in that direction. Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem is a more recent survey, with essays by a range of scholars.

But notice that how a person reconstructs the context is crucial. I'm very fond of Professor John McDade's "Jesus in Recent Research" in Catholic Theological Association Conference 1998, published in The Month (December 1998), 495-505

Foreground data

• If weight is given to the miracle tradition, then Jesus emerges as an ancient magician (Morton Smith) or as a Jewish charismatic healer and exorcist (Vermes).

• If the weight is given to the sayings tradition, then a range of images of Jesus is adduced.

• If the wisdom sayings (proverbs, parables, aphorisms etc.) are given prominence, then Jesus emerges as a sage (Vermes, Flusser) or even an itinerant subversive sage (Borg, Robinson, Funk).

• If an emphasis on the authenticity of the prophetic and apocalyptic sayings is retained, then Jesus emerges as an eschatological prophet (Meyer, Sanders, Charlesworth).

• If his Kingdom saying are interpreted apocalyptically (following Schweitzer), and linked with the Son of Man sayings, then Jesus is an other-worldly figure, expecting cosmic catastrophe and relatively indifferent to social concerns.

• If the Kingdom sayings are not interpreted apocalyptically, and the Son of Man sayings are viewed as secondary, then Jesus emerges as a this-worldly figure, a social prophet, with a social programme (Borg, Horsley, Hollenbach).

• If the emphasis is placed on the opposition to him and his death at the hands of the Romans, then Jesus emerges as a para-Zealot revolutionary (Brandon) or the pacifist victim of oppression.

Background data

The choice of context in which to place Jesus affects the estimate given of him:

• When emphasis is placed on the Palestinian Jewish context and within that on the Rabbinic tradition (although that did not flourish till after 70AD), then Jesus can be seen as the inspired Rabbi (Flusser, Chilton) or the Pharisee (Falk).

• If the choice is made to place him in the context of apocalyptic Judaism, then he can be seen as the ‘humane apocalyptist’ (Charlesworth) or the ‘reasonable visionary’ (Sanders).

• If his Galilean provenance is emphasised, then he becomes a charismatic holy man or hasid in the same tradition as Honi the Circle-Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa (Vermes).

• If Hellenistic influences in Galilee are emphasised, then he can be seen as a Cynic teacher (Mack, Crossan)

• If it is judged that he conforms to no particular social type, he cannot be placed in one of these categories (Hengel)

The Jesus who is envisaged in these accounts is the pre-canonical Jesus, arrived at through certain judgements about the nature of the Gospel traditions (both canonical and extra-canonical -- the Gospel of Thomas is now a controversial card in the game), and set in the dynamics of the religious, social and economic life of Palestine. There is then a radical dependence between the reconstructed Jesus and the reconstructed context/model: how the context and social model are understood determines how Jesus is understood. ‘Determines’ is not too strong a word, for one of the problems with this approach is that the grid of social and economic context is such a strong factor it can inhibit responsible handling of the actual textual evidence we have for Jesus. No wonder Sean Freyne comments that ‘the quest for the historical Jesus is in danger of becoming the quest for the historical Galilee’.

Bushman's essay at the Library of Congress in 2005 made similar observations about Joseph Smith's biographers.

But despite the controveries, the effort is essential. 2 Nephi 25:1-5 observes that we cannot understand the things of the Jewish prophets as they wrote save, save it be we are taught their culture and context. Jesus' parable of the Sower is about the importance of the context in we accept and nurture the word. "Know ye not this parable?" he asks. "How then shall ye know all parables?"

If we don't have some idea of the context of the writers, we inevitably overlay our own cultural context, our own preconceptions. We don't even know what we cannot see. But, as Nibley says, even if we cannot swim in the waters, we can at least go down to the shoreline.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bill Hamblin]

Context is everything.

[mfbukowski]

Honestly?

Learning about the context is a great thing to do, but you will never fully know it because you have not lived it. Yes, you can come close, yes, you will learn more about it, and get incrementally closer on a logarithmic scale according to how much effort you put into it (ie: the closer you get the harder it becomes to get still closer)

But you will never be fully "there" because you will never be (say) a First Century Jew who lives in (pick name of town)

And of course, all that study will not help you to determine if the person Jesus of Nazareth was in fact the Son of God and the savior of the world.

But if you like such things, I am sure it would be a lot of fun!

That's the good news AND the bad!

[Franktalk]

The basic message in the Bible has made it into the the Bible we have today. Just trust the power of God to have made that happen. The King James version or the NIV are both fine. I like the King James version myself. For the Old Testament I use the Septuagint on occasion. If you want access to the Hebrew or Greek then get a free copy of Esword off the internet. It has the Hebrew and Greek embedded into the text. Pray for guidance and understanding. Find someone filled with the Holy Ghost who wants to teach you. Them you should listen to. Stay away from people who embrace the world they will lead you away from the true meaning of scripture.

[LeSellers]

One of the problems with the concept of "context" is that there are a host of "contexts" for anything, and scripture not least among them.

"Scripture" is the context for any one passage. One cannot understand any scripture without knowing the others. We get into this sort of discussion with Mr. Bowman and many others when they say, "Your prophets/scriptures/"officialwebsites" say Xxxx." One (or even a dozen) such cullings does not define our doctrine and using them does not mean we a "believe" Xxxx.

The local situation (time, place, preceding events, political situation, etc.) are all important in understanding what the particular passage meant at the time it was written, but it may (or may not) have any bearing on how the passage applies to a different place and time.

This brings us to a different topic, what Nephi called "likening scripture unto ourselves". We see it in the New Testament frequently. Isaiah, for instance, was

not

talking about Jesus when he said, "a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son." He was talking about his own young wife. But Matthew likened that scripture to his day.

The "prophetic context" is also important. Nephi reminds us that his people didn't know the manner of prophecy among the Jews. I strongly suspect that we XXI readers do not, either.

Isaiah was not only a prophet, he was a poet. His writings are poetic, highly structured and linguistically "high brow". Micah said many of the same things, but his language is that of a bumpkin, his imagery very prosaic. I suppose experts could make a great deal of the differences between these two men of God. In the end, I doubt it would make any serious difference in how we understand their common message.

There is no harm, and potentially a great deal of benefit, in understanding the contexts of the scriptures. But the real reason we have scripture is not to understand them, but to understand ourselves in the Plan God has for us. That is best acquired by seeing the words of those dead men with our eyes, and then seeing them again with our knees.

Lehi

Edited September 5, 2011 by LeSellers

[Arkholt]

While one can never fully understand what context a particular verse was written in, I think it's at the very least important to keep in mind that these ancient writings are coming from a different context than our own. If you find yourself looking at a historical account through the lens of your own culture, stop and take a step back. You have to ask yourself, "What might this have meant to someone who didn't belong to my culture?" I think asking yourself that is much more important than studying specific contexts.

[jadams_4242]

I've been reading some discussions/arguments/debates about scriptural context and it has caused me to wonder:

How does a student of Scripture [like me!] learn the context behind the scripture an author wrote? Should I learn the history, language, politics, and culture of the author? Would that do or is there more? Does it really matter?

Also, how does current understanding of Scripture differ from those in Adam's time, or Moses', or Christ's, or Lehi's, or Joseph Smith's?

Can someone, anyone, point me in the right direction?

Their is an issue of "getting too deep" or too much technical info as to fog the context and get waaayyy off track into lots of differant areas and therefore loseing what we should have gotten from what was written.

[volgadon]

The basic message in the Bible has made it into the the Bible we have today. Just trust the power of God to have made that happen. The King James version or the NIV are both fine. I like the King James version myself.

Every English version is flawed.

For the Old Testament I use the Septuagint on occasion.

Which is far from always conveying the context of the OT.

If you want access to the Hebrew or Greek then get a free copy of Esword off the internet. It has the Hebrew and Greek embedded into the text.

WHich isn't much use without a lexicon and basic grammar.

Pray for guidance and understanding. Find someone filled with the Holy Ghost who wants to teach you. Them you should listen to. Stay away from people who embrace the world they will lead you away from the true meaning of scripture.

That might be fine for spiritual guidance, but it isn't the way to finding the historical context of scripture.

[volgadon]

While one can never fully understand what context a particular verse was written in, I think it's at the very least important to keep in mind that these ancient writings are coming from a different context than our own. If you find yourself looking at a historical account through the lens of your own culture, stop and take a step back. You have to ask yourself, "What might this have meant to someone who didn't belong to my culture?" I think asking yourself that is much more important than studying specific contexts.

I really enjoyed a Sunday School lesson last year where the teacherr read Banjo Patterson's "Waltzing Mathilda" and ask the class what a swagman, billabong, jumbuck, and Matilda were. Apart from the teacher and his wife who had served in Australia, I think I was the only one who knew, and that is because I happen to be a folkie. One of the ladies in the class said she had always thought that the song was about a girl.

[ldsfaqs]

Context is extremely important.... In addition to what others have said.

You need to consider the context of the verse itself, the surrounding verses, other verses/scripture on the same subject matter, the history, etc.

Take the "God is a Spirit" verse.

Other religions have taken that verse completely out of context, and ignoring other important context's.

I'm not going to get into all the variables here, but I'll mention the basics.

• First you have translation. The proper translation is actually "God is Spirit".Thus, that puts a notch in their beliefs that God is "only" spirit.
• Second, the verse itself. It doesn't even say God is "only" spirit. Thus, they are creating a new context, completely adding to the Word.
• Third, you have other verses which use the same exact wording, but in relation to man, and we all know men are not spirit only.
• Fourth, you have other verse which relate, such as Christ's nature, what he said about us, about God, about what we are to be, as Christ, etc. etc.

All these things and more add to the actual context, thus what the ACTUAL TRUTH is on this subject or any subject. However, other Christians essentially completely ignore these other important factors, and choose to instead embrace their out of context simplistic view which is entirely false. Even when they are told the full truth, they still refuse to budge.

Men have created all these religions with a serious "limited" ability to know the actual contexts of what they are preaching, thus they've created their own theology's, completely changing the original. Then you have people who don't really read the Bible "objectively", simply regurgitating like sheep what they are told it says. It still fascinates me for example how other Christians can ignore a good 1/4 of what the New Testament actually states the Lords Church on the earth should look like and act like on a variety of subjects. Me, I only saw it because I was young and had no bias toward any religion, simply being in several, reading the Bible for myself, and seeing these religions didn't fit at all, until I came upon mormonism.

I should note that this principle applies to EVERYTHING in life.....

Anti-mormons ignore multiple contexts to make their judgments, thus making false conclusions.

People ignore more fuller contexts related to Romney, thinking he's a liberal, doesn't know Church doctrine, etc. by viewing only a couple of facts, without the full truth of the issues.

Liberals in my view ignore the full context of things.

9/11 Truthers ignore the full context of things. On and on.....

It is a sad human condition that we get a "little" knowledge and then think we are Wise.

Not enough really delve into a subject and objectively so, to really understand what the actual truth about it is.

Edited September 5, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Ahab]

I've been reading some discussions/arguments/debates about scriptural context and it has caused me to wonder:

How does a student of Scripture [like me!] learn the context behind the scripture an author wrote?

This is one of the areas where you need to ask for and accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He helps the people to write the scriptures, and he also helps people to understand what those people wrote.

Should I learn the history, language, politics, and culture of the author?

How would you propose to learn their history, and how would you know in what context to read historical texts?

The Bible is a record of history, or at least the historical parts of it are, and yet you still need the guidance of the Holy Spirit to help you correctlyunderstand what happened.

Can someone, anyone, point me in the right direction?

When I point to God I usually point straight up, but as long as you get the idea that I'm pointing you to God, that's really all that matters.

[Questing Beast]

I've been reading some discussions/arguments/debates about scriptural context and it has caused me to wonder:

How does a student of Scripture [like me!] learn the context behind the scripture an author wrote? Should I learn the history, language, politics, and culture of the author? Would that do or is there more? Does it really matter?

Also, how does current understanding of Scripture differ from those in Adam's time, or Moses', or Christ's, or Lehi's, or Joseph Smith's?

Can someone, anyone, point me in the right direction?

Not me. But then, I lost all confidence in an appeal to HISTORY long ago. Scripture taken in context requires a knowledge of history. But Michael Jackson pegged it: "His Story", that's all history is: some dude's (or dudette's) version of what went down long and not so long ago. The older the story, the more divested of facts it is. Agenda creeps in or is, worse, deliberately sown into the narrative. Scripture is possibly the worst history that there is: it is agenda-driven to the max: "God told me so." Well, what if MY God does not agree with your god? And here we are.

If scripture has a context that is valid today, it must resonate to people reading scripture today. Ancient religious cultures are not germane to our situation and needs. Evidence supports a changeable "God". Yet the scriptures say that God is unchanging from eternity to all eternity, etc. Obviously, the changeability is man, not God. So scripture today will mean different things than it used to for society at large. What gets by today as truth for one group would get the adherents of such a "doctrine" burned at the stake by the Puritans 300 years ago. "The Demon Haunted World" of the past took scripture into an entirely different context than we do today....

[volgadon]

Ah yes, one of my pet peeves. Even if history were originally an English word, you can't break history into "his story", there is only one "s".

[Franktalk]

Every English version is flawed.

Yet the message came through in tact, praise God. God one man zero.

Which is far from always conveying the context of the OT.

Since God is outside of time and He is responsible for language I trust His ability to create timeless messages. It is man who tries to change the message from God by using all manner of methods. I trust the KJV because the Holy Ghost has confirmed to me that I have understood some of it correctly. I trust the seventy Jewish scholars to interpret ancient Hebrew in 280 BC more so than modern ones. If context is important they conveyed that in the Septuagint. But more important Jesus quoted from the Septuagint. A fine book with the proper context if you ask me.

WHich isn't much use without a lexicon and basic grammar.

Which is not needed if the Holy Ghost was guiding man in his interpretations. The message carried through. And besides the Bible is like a starter book like see Jane run. It is spiritual communication that is our witness. See 1 John 5:8

That might be fine for spiritual guidance, but it isn't the way to finding the historical context of scripture.

Spiritual guidance is of great value, historical context not so much.

[Franktalk]

While one can never fully understand what context a particular verse was written in, I think it's at the very least important to keep in mind that these ancient writings are coming from a different context than our own. If you find yourself looking at a historical account through the lens of your own culture, stop and take a step back. You have to ask yourself, "What might this have meant to someone who didn't belong to my culture?" I think asking yourself that is much more important than studying specific contexts.

Actually I think the message is written with time taken into account. Maybe an example is in order. In the Bible it says:

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

This is talking about the future Temple not yet built. And it is talking about the Holy of Hollies. Which is entered by the High Priest one day per year (alone). So how can we see the abomination of desolation stand in the Holy place? Why on international news of course (TV).

The prophecies that have not happened yet are future. Why would I look back to see the future? And if the Holy Ghost is inspiring the writing then the context will be appropriate for all ages of importance.

[volgadon]

Yet the message came through in tact, praise God. God one man zero.

You keep parroting that mantra, but have yet to sufficiently address the issue raised in the OP.

Since God is outside of time and He is responsible for language I trust His ability to create timeless messages.

The message may be timeless but that doesn't mean that the mode of expression is. Oh well, at least I have George Steiner's "After Babel" to keep me company during my handbasket excursion.

It is man who tries to change the message from God by using all manner of methods.

Perhaps the most frequently encountered method is obscurantism. I would have you look it up, but unfortunately you correctly despise all such carnal manifestations of man's finite and impefect wisdom as dictionaries are.

I trust the KJV because the Holy Ghost has confirmed to me that I have understood some of it correctly.

That would mean something if I trusted you.

I trust the seventy Jewish scholars to interpret ancient Hebrew in 280 BC more so than modern ones.

I take it that you trust absolutely the historical reliability of the Letter to Aristeas?

If context is important they conveyed that in the Septuagint.

Context is always important, unfortunately they usually read their own world into it.

But more important Jesus quoted from the Septuagint.

I would love for you to show that Jesus did.

A fine book with the proper context if you ask me.

Sometimes it gets the context right, more often than not it doesn't.

Which is not needed if the Holy Ghost was guiding man in his interpretations.

As this is an LDS board I'll refrain from using a word similar to this http://www.puhoihistoricalsociety.org.nz/Hardwork_files/PHS%25200009_small.jpg

The message carried through.

But lost a great deal of its clarity, power, beauty and depth in the process.

And besides the Bible is like a starter book like see Jane run.

It is spiritual communication that is our witness. See 1 John 5:8

Where do you find anything about scripture in there? I find this reference of yours beautifully ironic, seeing as how this thread is about context.

Also, take a look at this. http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

Spiritual guidance is of great value,

Have never stated otherwise.

historical context not so much.

Why then in a modern day revelation are we expressly commanded to study history?

[volgadon]

Also, how does current understanding of Scripture differ from those in Adam's time, or Moses', or Christ's, or Lehi's, or Joseph Smith's?

I highly recommend Kugel's "The Bible as it Was." His book explores ancient Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Old Testament. I find it an excellent introduction.

[mfbukowski]

Ah yes, one of my pet peeves. Even if history were originally an English word, you can't break history into "his story", there is only one "s".

Yes, but then you have the ever-popular "Geschichte" which means both "story" and "history".

[volgadon]

So how can we see the abomination of desolation stand in the Holy place? Why on international news of course (TV).

What happens to those without a TV?

[mfbukowski]

Great stuff!

Edited September 5, 2011 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

Scripture's perfection, in other words, ultimately included its being in accord with the interpreter's own ideas, standards of conduct, and the like.

-James L. Kugel, "The Bible as it Was," p. 21.

I would add that if the text contradicted those standards it was reinterpreted so as to bring it in line with the interpreter's world of values.

Edited September 5, 2011 by volgadon

[volgadon]

Yes, but then you have the ever-popular "Geschichte" which means both "story" and "history".

You needn't look further than "historia" itself.

I don't know about Polish, but Russian still uses "istoriya" for "history" and "story."

[ldsfaqs]

Just had an anti-mormon on another forum rip a scripture out of context in order to try and condemn Baptism for the Dead and Genealogy work.

They used Pauls statement in 1 Tim. 1 about "genealogy's" as if he was condemning it. However, he wasn't at all. He was condemning the vanity of some in using family story's, family heritage, etc. in order to think of themselves as superior, etc., rather than using such as simply part of the Gospel of Faith for Godly edifying.

He was condemning the "misuse" of Genealogy's, not condemning the work itself. Rather than for the Glory of God and others, it was being used for selfish purposes.

An example of how people ignore "context" in order to make claims and support various false beliefs.

Edited September 6, 2011 by ldsfaqs