RESPONDING TO SOME ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CENTRALITY

OF BACKGROUND AND EPIGRAPHY IN HERMENEUTICS

 

We Have Already Learned All We Need to Know

 

While we have seen several points of lexical contact between the building contracts of the ancient world and two epistles of the New Testament, some scholars question the necessity of this research.  They propose that studies of this sort may be superfluous, claiming rather that the meaning of a text can be gleaned from simply a ‘face-value’ analysis[1]—or through the lenses of church history.  In short, they state that the meaning of text has already been gathered and our task is now simply to preserve tradition.  These proponents often reason in this way,

 

Have you ever stopped to think how unlikely it is, after two thousand years of intense examination and reflection, that any substantively new understanding of the Christian faith would be discovered now?  We find new discoveries in astronomy, new discoveries in medical science and so on.  But here we are looking at the same source, the same material that has been sifted over and over again for two thousand years.[2] 

 

While one should appreciate the pastoral spirit expressed in this view, we should also recognize that the Reformers too confronted this very line of thinking.  Apart from debates of church history though, what happens when contemporary believers discover new material and sources of the ancient world—data that the saints of Christian history did not have the opportunity to examine?[3]  Hardly should we cast out our understanding of orthodox truth; at the same time we must be warned of a presuppositional bias against new insights into the background of even the substantive matters of our faith.  Considering the ever-expanding possibilities yielded by epigraphical finds, Horsely has written,

 

It would be a great misfortune if the continuing flow of rich, new documentary evidence about the Greco-Roman world passes NT researchers by without their making a concerted effort to draw that material into their own ambit and to assess its worth for the discipline…the danger really lies, I suggest, in another quarter: the tacit acceptance by so many in the NT field that the contribution which these texts may make is so minute that they do not really warrant much attention.[4]

 

The Reliability of Ancient Information is Suspect

 

Perhaps the aforementioned argument against critically examining traditional orthodoxy—in light of contemporary discoveries of life in the New Testament world—is really a concern for the degree of reliability of the material discovered by more contemporary scholars. Yet, the exegete should not turn in shame from the primary sources available for current investigation simply to make sure that their work is in line with the theology of the Reformation period.  Indeed, our goal should be a humble proposition of our discoveries, but that should not temper our spirit of aggressive research and exegesis.  As Gordon Fee cogently states in the following two comments,

It should be noted by way of caution that much of our background literature has come down to us by chance circumstances, and that much of our information is pieced together form a variety of extant sources that reflect but a small percentage of what was written in antiquity.  While it is proper to draw conclusions from what we have, such conclusions very often need to be presented a bit more tentatively than NT scholarship is often wont to do.[5]

 

Yet, summarizing the fruitfulness of background study in the exegetical process, Fee goes on to state that,

This is a rich treasure of material that will usually aid the exegetical task immeasurably.  Therefore, you are urged to read regularly and widely from the primary sources of antiquity.  Such reading will often give you a feel for the period and will enable you to glean much in a general way, even when it does not necessarily yield immediate direct parallels.[6]

 

In the end, the many points of lexical commonality between the epigraphy and the biblical texts under consideration in this paper may necessitate the study of epigraphy and background for proper interpretation and application of the New Testament at large.  In light of the analysis above, it may be that we in biblical studies are guilty of a hidden error: thinking our work complete when it may be lacking a grasp of what the text said and meant to the original audience.

 

Studying Background and Epigraphy is too Time-Consuming

 

Yet, one may conclude that—upon consideration of the general difficulty of the exegetical task, and the schedule demands of those committed to teaching the Word of God—they simply do not have the time for further work in the primary sources.  While time demands may be a hindrance to the exegetical process, the contemporary student can find encouragement in the fruit of their labor: rightly applying the text to the people of God.  After listing various background arenas that must be investigated by those involved in biblical studies, Jackson writes,

 

I can ensure myself of better applications of the text if I am willing to pay the price for arriving at the proper interpretations of the text first.  Because the story of the New Testament did not unfold in a vacuum, it is expedient for the interpreter to discover all the background information possible to uncover its true meaning so one may apply it responsibly.[7]

 

Further, Walter Kaiser proposes the same notion to those in pastoral ministry,

In the midst of all the feverish activity to restore the Church once again to her former position of influence and respect, all sorts of programs and slogans have appeared.  But regardless of what new directives and emphases are periodically offered, that which is needed above everything else to make the church more viable, authentic, and effective, is a new declaration of the Scriptures with a new purpose, passion, and power.  This we believe is most important if the work of God is to be accomplished in the program of the local church.[8]