Hermeneutical Spirals and Stuff: A Critical Essay by Tamice Namae
Grant Osborne, a PhD professor of New Testament Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Gordon Fee, PhD Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College and Douglas Stuart, PhD Professor of Old Testament at Gordon- Conwell Theological Seminary attempt to give the reader tools to navigate biblical study and hermeneutical challenges in their respective works: The Hermeneutical Spiral and How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.
There are similarities in the grievances over contemporary hermeneutic approaches in each of the texts yet the motivations behind penmanship, the foundations of process and methods vary between the authors. The reader will find this brief explanation helpful in identifying these differences in this essay.
At the outset, one finds that Osborne’s work is written for scholars for the purpose of proper and professional homiletics. Its main theme is to criticize to undermining the hermeneutical circle theory of scripture interpretation. Osborne rejects the idea that the reader can never fully extract the original intent of the author of the text. He writes,
Scholars since the New Hermeneutic have been fond of describing a hermeneutical circle within which our interpreting the text leads to its interpreting us. However, such a closed circle is dangerous because the priority of the text is lost in the shared gestalt of the language event. Spiral is a better metaphor because it is not a closed circle but rather an open-ended movement from the horizon of the text to the horizon of the reader. I am not going round and round a closed circle that can never detect the true meaning but I am spiraling nearer and nearer to the texts intended meaning as I refine my hypothesis and allow the text to challenge and correct those alternative interpretations, then to guide my delineation of its significance for my situation today.
The foundational premise and motivation for Fee and Stuart however, is one’s understanding of the literary genre. This they argue will aid in the successful interpretation of the text for the common reader. Their positional assertion is that the reader needs only to ask the appropriate questions of the text in order to comprehend its meaning. They make no claims in terms of a circle or spiral approach to the text and spend the entirety of the book on the subject of genre analysis. Fee and Stuart have written with the common reader in mind making it much easier to digest. One finds that Osborne leans more toward objective examples and stays outside of the text, while Fee and Stuart take more of an exhortative pastoral approach. This is evidenced by the literary voice and the paragraphs in nearly every chapter where the reader is given their particular stance and opinion on a matter. One feels less inclined to exegete and interpret the passage on their own in light of this. An example of this tendency of Fee and Stuart to exhibit their annoyance or personal opinion is very clearly seen in their section on cultural relativity:
Nearly all Christians at least to a limited degree, do translate biblical texts into new settings. Without articulating it in precisely this way, twenty-first-century evangelicals us this principle to have a little wine for thy stomachs sake in the first century, to not insist on head coverings or long hair for women today, and do not practice the ‘holy kiss’. Many of the same evangelicals, however, since when a woman’s teaching in the church (when men are present) is also defended on these grounds, and they become downright indignant when someone tries to defend same-sex partnerships (Fee, Stuart 84).
One will find examples of this in Osborne’s work but it is less excessive conspicuous. In the following example, Osborne makes a statement regarding the historical debates but does not choose a side. after adequately informing the reader of both sides of the argument, something he consistently does throughout the work.
Every decade or so an issue arises that threatens to split the church. In the 1960s it was the rapture debate; in the 1900s the charismatic issue; in the 1980s and 1990s, women in the church, and now the feminist issue is whether all masculine-oriented language in scripture should be translated literally or in accordance with the larger intentions.
He goes on to define inclusive language as the process in which bible translators “replace male pronouns or terms that refer to more than men in the context with inclusive substitutes like one, you, they, people and such, unless the context is describing the ancient cultural setting.” According to Osborne, this debate is causing a furor in the church and furthers describes the nuance of the language translations. The remarkable reality is his opinion related to issue which threaten to causes dissension in the church is subtly stated while he refuses to assert his opinion in the matter regarding the positions. This is an approach that is lacking in Fee and Stuart.
The three authors take similar approaches in terms of organizing texts with the main difference being Osborne's ability to be generous with the categorizing. He starts with the text and fits the genre to the text whereas Fee and Stuart seem to stuff the text into a specific genre. This creates issues with regard to apocalyptic writing and poetry since there are books that have been categorized in Fee and Stuart as belonging to one genre and in Osborne books are not pigeonholed to a specific genre since there can be several genre categories to be found within one specific text.
Upon a side by side comparison, the reader finds initially that the two works contain different categorizations and result in there being three more genre considerations in Stuart and Fee than in Osborne. Osborne identified seven categories as opposes to Stuart and Fee’s ten. Focusing intently on Psalms, Parables and Acts Fee and Stuart provide a much more in-depth analysis of genres that Osborne only graces over. This is due in large part to the aforementioned approach to categorization in the two books. For the purposes of this paper, a contrast and comparison will only be undertaken in the categorizations that are shared by both books.
On matters relating to the Old Testament law and how it functions in terms of relevance for the contemporary church, both texts agree that Christ is the fulfillment of the law however their ideas diverge in terms of application. Osborne claims that the Old Testament is meant to be applied directly just like the New Testament while Fee and Stuart argue that the Old Testament is meant to be considered the word of God but not seen as direct commands to the contemporary, New Testament Church. As it pertains to wisdom writings, Fee and Stuart are used as a basis behind Osborne’s warnings about the misuse and misapplication of wisdom books. He serves the reader better than the latter in the thoroughness and treatment of the genre by going into much more detail about the genre than they do. A clear example of this point is found as Osborne discusses the types and techniques within wisdom literature by exploring apocryphal texts. Fee and Stuart simply define wisdom and point to where it manifests in scripture.
An equally frustrating aspect of Fee and Stuart’s work comes into play as one encounters the sections which deal with the prophetic and poetic genres. The difficulty lies in producing a clear comparison due to the limitation of examples provided by Fee and Stuart over and against Osborne. Osborn submits the importance of ascertaining the principles behind the genre whereas the other text encourages the reader to obtain resources. This seems contradictory to their desire to help the readers themselves learn to extract meaning from the text and consequently creates a dilemma when attempting to compare the two textbooks.
What is similar in both treatments, however, is their shared belief that prophecy is widely misused and misinterpreted as well as how one should interpret prophecy-fulfillment. Other differences include Osborne's relegation of the parables as a sub-genre while Fee and Stuart produce an entire subject on the subject as an outright category. In addition, they share similar positions on the interpretation and treatment of apocalyptic literature as well as narrative leaving the reader equipped with a thorough understanding of how to approach scripture.
One walks away from Osborne's text feeling inundated with information and weary by the reading of certain sections. As a scholarly work, written for professional clergy or those in the field of academic study The Hermeneutical Spiral is absolutely essential to have as a reference. On the other hand, the layperson or believer interested in deeper understanding and study would be extremely helped and encouraged by reading How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth.
Bibliography
1. Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014.
2. Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.