These notes provide a basis for class discussion and for quizzes and exams. Use these guidelines as a basis of preparation for class discussion. For details about using the Lecture Notes materials click on . To display the Greek text contained in this page, download and install the free BSTGreek True Type fonts from Bible Study Tools.

Sources to Consult:

Cranford, Lorin L. "Modern New Testament Interpretation." Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. Second Edition, 147-162. Edited by Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant I. Lovejoy. Nashville: Broadman Press, 2002.

Cranford, Lorin L. Exegeting the New Testament: vol 1, A Seminar Working Model, Revised Edition. Fort Worth: Scripta Publishing, Inc., 1991

Steps in Exegeting a Passage from the Greek New Testament
 

2.2.1 Exegeting a Passage

        In this lesson we will concentrate on the process of interpreting a pericope of scripture, that is, a natural literary unit of text material. In the subsequent lesson, the focus will be on pulling together the exegesis of the pericopes of a scripture document in order to gain a holistic reading of the entire document. Here the interpretative approach takes on a more obvert theological slant than will be the case with the exegesis of a single pericope.
        In beginning the process of interpreting a passage of scripture, some activities need to take place, as well as having certain tools (secondary sources of information) at hand. Ideally, the exegete begins with a reading of the scripture passage in the original language text. If such is not possible, then a careful analysis of the scripture text from a comparison of several translations representing different translation methodologies is the next best approach. In either instance, the objective is to begin trying to make sense of the passage, first in terms of its historical meaning. Only once this has been established satisfactorily can an exposition of the contemporary application of this historical meaning be attempted.

2.2.1.1 Preparatory Steps
        The initial analysis of a pericope is important. The first thing is to determine as far a possible the natural limits to a passage of scripture which then will comprise a pericope of text. This can be done at one of two levels of analysis. The simplest level is to pay close attention to the paragraphing that occurs in printed Greek texts of the New Testament, as well as in a variety of modern translations. To be sure, paragraphing was not a part of the ancient process at all, but natural units of ideas were certainly built into the ancient text. Paragraphing is merely a modern device in western languages designed to visually highlight such natural units of thought expression. These can provide helpful clues to determining a pericope.
        Why is this important? Primarily, because it plays a role in establishing a literary setting or context for a passage. If a natural unit of thought expression is improperly chopped up and the parts are related to others units of thought, the exegete seriously risks misunderstanding of the idea(s) being presented. A clear example of this can be found in James 1:16 with the admonition "do not deceive yourselves, my beloved brothers!" If the statement is taken with the preceding statements in verses 13-15, then the meaning becomes "don't deceive yourselves about your responsibility for sin in your life and its consequences." However, if the statement is taken as introductory to the following verses in 17-18, then the meaning becomes "don't deceive yourselves about who God is as the giver of nothing but good gifts." When the interpretative process reaches a logical conclusion in sermonic development, the determination of a legitimate pericope -- which is the exclusive foundation for a genuinely biblically based sermon -- will play a significant role in what is preached.
        When a comparison is made of numerous Greek texts and English translations, -- although variations will certainly be found -- most always a pattern begins to emerge in the various sources. This will provide a starting point for such a determination. Further insight can be gleaned from examining commentaries, especially those like the Word Biblical Commentary series, that carefully treat such literary issues. Explanations for why the commentator divided up biblical document into specific pericopes will be helpful.
        At the highest level of analysis the exegete needs to examine the signals that indicate natural units of thought expression. These signals include repetitive words or concepts, logical progression of thought that once completed turns a noticeably different direction, detectable literary forms such as parables, beatitudes, proverbs etc. Other larger literary issues can play a role as well. In the James 1:16 issue, most commentators argue that 1:16 should go with 1:17-18 because of the stylistic pattern in the book of James. Admonitions serve consistently as the introductory lead into a pericope; for example, see 1:2, 9, 19, 22, 26 just in chapter one. Although elsewhere I have argued for 1:16 belonging with 1:13-15 on other grounds, this is a forceful argument that cannot be ignored or casually dismissed.

2.2.1.1.1 Translate Passage / Analyze Translations
        Two very different items are touched upon here, although they do have some connection to one another.

        Translating the passage assumes an analysis of the biblical language text.
        Of course, translation is impossible until an analysis of words, phrases, and clauses inside the pericope is completed. For Greek students the sometimes dreaded parsing of words comes to the forefront, yet is an absolutely essential activity to be able to determine the boundaries of possible meaning. But as Rhetorical Criticism and Discourse Analysis have clearly demonstrated, the inner connection of words, and especially phrases, clauses and sentences inside a paragraph are necessary elements of analysis. Patterns of though development and argumentation of ideas can be detected, especially in light of how this was understood in the ancient world. These technical disciplines of exegesis have reminded us that an ancient Jewish mind doesn't think the way a modern American mind thinks. And when that Jewish mind, like the apostle Paul's, was blending elements of Jewish heritage and training with Greco-Roman heritage and training, the exegete often comes up against a thought pattern very different from a modern American pattern of thinking. As Hans Dieter Betz so effectively demonstrated over two decades ago with his commentary on Galatians in the Hermeneia series, Paul used persuasive argumentation taken from either juridical speech or deliberative speech to make his case for the Gospel to the Galatians. But interspersed in this pattern of Greco-Roman use of persuasive speech are segments where the former Pharisee arguments just like a Jewish rabbi; for example, his allegory of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21-31 immediately following a typical Greek appeal to friendship argumentational pattern in 4:12-20.
        One way of doing this detailed analysis is through developing a block diagram of the Greek text, followed by a semantic diagram of the text. For an example of this see the work on 3 John in the Adobe PDF format. The guidelines for doing this procedure are found in the Appendix Five of my Learning Biblical Koine Greek grammar. It is also available at Cranfordville.com as gkgrma05.pdf. The illustration of how this works itself out can be seen in the series of study manuals on the Greek and English text of the New Testament that I've published over the past 25 years.

        Once the initial analysis of a text is completed, the exegete is now in a position to translate the ideas of the Greek language text into an English expression. The process of translating is an involved one, but can be charted out as follows:
 

        Analysis.  The process of analysis begins with the determination of the cognitive meaning of a pericope. This focuses primarily on the analysis of the words, phrases, clauses, sentences described above. Once this process has been completed the next stage is an analysis of the connotative meaning of a passage. Ideas expressed in a range beginning with single words through sentences trigger referential meaning quite obviously. But they also trigger emotional reaction as well. A couple of passages in John 2:4 and 19:26 where the Greek word gunhv for woman is found in the vocative case.  Note John 2:4 where Jesus said literally to his mother, "What is that to me, woman?"  And then again to his mother in 19:26, "Woman, here is your son" as from the cross he handed the care of her over to John. Although the translation of "woman" is cognitively correct, it is a gross distortion connotatively. In both passages the term is one of love and endearment in the Greek. But, the English translation "woman" signals disrespect and rudeness by Jesus to his mother. Consequently, it is a bad, misleading translation of the Greek term. Thus both levels of meaning -- cognitive and connotative -- must be given carefully consideration in the analysis stage of translation.

        Transfer. This stage of the translation process takes place mostly in the mind of the translator as he serves as a bridge for transferring meaning from the SLT to the RLT. Several detailed discussions of this can be found by Nida, Tabor, and Glassman who are professional Bible translators and work in this field. See the above detailed discussion on Translating for references and more discussion. But let me summarize a couple of important points. (1) The translator must be sensitive to barriers to understanding within himself. Sometimes this is too much knowledge of the technicalities of the Greek text he is translating. Thus the resulting translation can easily take for granted that the reader knows a lot of these technical details, especially when it comes to ecclesiastical terms like redemption, justification etc. The translation becomes an 'insider' translation that only the properly 'initiated' can understand. (2) Care to reduce to a minimum the loss of semantic meaning in the translation process. Loss of meaning is inevitable, but with proper caution this can be reduced. One particularly difficult area has to do with idioms and figurative language in the source language text. With such language the translator has three options: a) preserve the idiom in tact in the RLT (from Rom. 12:20, 'heap coals of fire on his head'); b) translate with a non figurative RLT expression ('make him ashamed'); or c) substitute an equivalent RLT figurative expression ('make him feel a burning sense of shame'). The dominant translation methodology being used -- Form Oriented or Content Oriented -- will play a role in the choice here, with FO preferring a) or possibly b), while the CO will prefer either b) or c).
        Nida and Tabor recommend three guiding principles to be adhered to in the Transfer stage: (1) The content of the message must be transferred with as little loss or distortion as possible; (2) the referential (cognitive) meaning has highest priority but connotative is also very important and not to be neglected; (3) If the above meaning can be transferred by using a similar RL form then it should be used, but form must not be maintained to the sacrifice of content.

        Restructuring. At this final stage of the translation process the emphasis is upon readability and comprehension by the targeted readers of the translated text. What is the clearest, simplest way to communicate the meaning of the SLT in natural expression that can be readily understood by the reader or hearer of the RLT? With the emergence of professional Bible translation during the twentieth century, translations increasingly are focused on specifically defined targeted readerships. These include people with little education who are barely literate all the way to highly educated individuals. Different age groups become targeted audiences from a children's Bible to a youth oriented translation to a senior citizen oriented translation. Differing levels of church and religious orientation become targeted audiences, all the way from non-believers to high church worshippers. Once a targeted readership is defined by a translation team -- usually under the sponsorship of a Bible translation agency such as the American Bible Society -- then a specific translation methodology will be developed from the two basic approaches -- Form Oriented and Content Oriented -- that is taylor made to best suit the needs of the targeted audience. The restructuring phase of the translation will endeavor to produce the translation that most clearly communicates the meaning of the SLT to its intended audience. This may necessitate substantial restructuring of the source language form.

        The goal of Bible translation has been summarized well by Nida as seeking the closest natural equivalent meaning in the RLT.

        Analyze Translations. Of course, if one can't work from the original language text, then the option becomes a comparative analysis of English translations representing an array of the translation methodology described above. For a detailed description of this procedure go to the Analysis Paper assignment in either Religion 101 or 102 where the survey classes complete such an analysis as the first step of their exegesis paper assignment for this classes. At Cranfordville.com, this page is the Paper Flow Chart, Phase One Assignment.
        Very important for success in this endeavor is the choice of the three or four translations for comparative study. I've found it extremely helpful to line up the Form Oriented translations on the left hand column(s) and the Content Oriented translations on the right hand column(s). The translations adopting a mixture of these two basic methods will fall between these two. For a listing of how most modern English translations line up go to Cranfordville.com, at the page English Translations.
        The activities defined here represent two stages of analysis. First, the use of a color coding system to highlight the similarities among the four translations. Then, next, a detailed analysis of the differences that now are quite visible among the four translations. This process involves raising questions about why these differences and then at a more advanced level raising questions about the concepts or ideas being communicated by the scripture text through these four translations. The use of secondary study tools such as Bible dictionaries, concordances, and commentaries now becomes the source of finding answers to the two sets of questions emerging from the comparative analysis. Once these questions have been answered satisfactorily some interpretative conclusions about the meaning  -- both exegetical and expositional -- of the scripture text are possible.

2.2.1.1.2 Text Critical Issues
        Textual Criticism is a scholarly discipline that requires substantially higher technical skills than the vast majority of biblical scholars possess. At the heart of the discipline is the evaluation of the 5,600 plus Greek manuscripts of the NT that have been discovered over the past 150 years and since the 1950s have become available for examination on a wide spread basis. Added to this are the hundreds of ancient translations in some half dozen or more ancient languages, the Greek lectionaries and the writings of the Greek and Latin Church Fathers where the NT is quoted or alluded to. The goal is to sort through these manuscripts that contain several thousand different wordings of the text of the NT in order to conclude what the most likely original wording of the NT documents was. Very carefully refined procedures have been hammered out with the method known as Rational Eclecticism is the method about 90% of the scholars in this field use today. Outside of the ultra-conservative Majority Text approach where only a small handful of people work, the other approach used almost entirely by a few British scholars is known as Rigorous Eclecticism. Rational Eclecticism attempts to give balance between the external evidence and the internal evidence, while Rigorous Eclecticism gives almost exclusive weight to internal factors, which by their very nature are much more subjective than the external factors.
        We will not go into the details here, but a brief introduction to these issues is available at Cranfordville.com under Greek 202 at the page Study in Textual Criticism.
        While few Bible students have qualifications to actually practice textual analysis at a technical level, it is helpful to understand some of the basics in order to make sense out of commentaries etc. that discuss these issues. The method of evaluation is typically broken down into the following aspects:

2.1 Rational Eclecticism
2.1.1. Evaluating External Witnesses
2.1.1.1. Date
2.1.1.2. Geographical Distribution
2.1.1.3. Textual Relationships
2.1.2. Evaluating Internal Evidence
2.1.2.1 Transcriptional Probabilities
2.1.2.1.1 Shorter/Longer Reading
2.1.2.1.2 Reading Different from Parallel
2.1.2.1.3 More Difficult Reading
2.1.2.1.4 Reading Which Best Explains Origin of Other(s)
2.1.2.2 Intrinsic Probabilities

Explanation:

• The marginal readings footnotes (highlighted in the ^{bold red superscripted letters} in above James text) refers only to the above illustrated footnotes. In the NOSB, the Study Notes (see yellow shaded row above) that occur at the bottom of the page underneath the NRSV text do not apply to this assignment!
• Pay particular, but not exclusive attention to the introductory statement Other ancient authorities read in the footnotes, since this introduces a variant reading in the underlying Greek or Hebrew text. These are the expression of the products of Textual Critical analysis studied in class (topics 1.7.1 & 1.7.2). For more detailed analysis of these you should check the better commentaries which will discuss the textual variant issues in the specified scripture verse.
• For a brief explanation of the NOSB format, read the section "1. Variant Readings and Alternative Readings" under II. FINDING WHAT THE TEXT SAYS (page xvii in How to use this study Bible). These are the primary focus of the Marginal Readings assignment in the Analysis Paper assignment.

2.2.1.2 Literary Issues
        The literary aspects of any written text have to do with both the internal arrangement of ideas and the place that a pericope has inside the larger document. Both these dimensions will now be treated. For a detailed inclusive treatement see the Lecture Notes "Interpreting the New Testament Documents" topic 3.1.2.

2.2.1.2.1...Genre
        By definition 'genre' has to do with repetitive patterns of thought expression that show up over a period of time in multiple documents. This is not the expression of the same idea over and over. Instead, it is a repeated arrangement of saying different ideas through the use of a common structure. This applies to forms outside of written expression. We know what pop music is over against classical music or jazz. Inside jazz, for example, you encounter fusion, smooth, latin etc. In literary forms we know the difference between poetry and narrative, between biography and fiction.
        In the study of the literary forms of the New Testament we encounter gospel, history, letter, and apocalypse as basic genre or literary forms. With the emphasis on the Synoptic Gospels, the focus will be on identifying the gospel form and its subforms.
 

Alternative Views:
Mitchell Glenn Reddish, "What is a Gospel?," Introduction to the Gospels (iPreach):

        For the person familiar with the New Testament, the answer to the question “What is a Gospel?” might seem obvious: a Gospel is one of the four writings in the New Testament that describe the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. That answer is true, but it is not sufficient because it does not tell us what kind of writings the Gospels are. Furthermore, it limits the term gospel to the New Testament writings alone. The Greek word euangelion, translated as “gospel,” means “good news.” This word was used among the ancient Greeks for the announcement of military victories or other instances of good fortune. Inscriptions from the Roman imperial period apply the word euangelion to the life and activities of the emperor. The Priene inscription of 9 BCE, for example, declares that the birthday of Caesar Augustus was for the world “the beginning of his good messages [or 'good news'].”⁴
        For the early Christians the story of Jesus was the “good news” that they proclaimed to the world. In the New Testament, particularly in the writings of Paul, euangelion is used to describe the message about Jesus that was the content of the church's preaching and teaching. The Gospel of Mark, for example, opens with the statement, “The beginning of the good news (euangelion) of Jesus Christ.” When written works describing the life and teachings of Jesus began to appear, the word euangelion was a fitting designation for these works. In this way the word gospel came to be used to describe certain writings that circulated in the Christian communities.
        An examination of the various works labeled “gospels” in the early church reveals that the term was applied to works with widely differing forms and contents. Some “gospels,” like the four in the New Testament, are primarily narrative works, containing stories about Jesus and his teachings. Other “gospels,” such as the Gospel of Thomas, are collections of sayings attributed to Jesus, with little or no narrative material connecting the sayings. Are all of these works appropriately designated “gospels”?
        On that question scholars disagree. Some scholars argue that the canonical Gospels should define the characteristics of the gospel genre. Those who follow this approach often conclude that gospels are narratives that provide information about the life, teachings, and activities of Jesus of Nazareth. One recent definition of the genre of the canonical Gospels, for instance, states, “A Gospel is a narrative, fashioned out of selected traditions, that focuses on the activity and speech of Jesus as a way to reveal his character and develops a dramatic plot that culminates in the stories of his passion and resurrection.”⁵ This definition virtually eliminates any of the noncanonical gospels from being considered as authentic gospels. Some are excluded because they are not narratives but collections of sayings or dialogues (such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary); others are excluded because even though they contain narrative materials they focus only on one aspect of the life of Jesus rather than on his entire life and death. Examples of the latter type would be the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Protoevangelium of James. In chapter 7 of this book we will raise again the question of the appropriateness of the term gospel for these works that are not a part of the canon and discuss the contents of some of them. Because the focus of our study, however, is the canonical Gospels, we will concentrate on the use of the word gospel as it applies to them.
        Precritical reading of the Gospels viewed them as historical writings about Jesus or as biographies of Jesus. Such readers assumed that the material in the Gospels was historically accurate and that the task of the Gospel writers had been to transmit faithfully the historical details about the life and teachings of Jesus. According to this view, the writers exercised very little creative control over the works they produced. With the rise of new approaches to the study of the Gospels in the twentieth century, scholars began to reach new conclusions about the Gospels. Using the approach of source criticism, scholars demonstrated that the Gospels were not created ex nihilo (out of nothing) but were dependent upon earlier source materials. Form criticism revealed that behind the written Gospels stood oral traditions that circulated in set forms or patterns and that became the basis for much of the Gospels. Redaction critics discovered that the Gospel writers were not merely collectors and transmitters of traditions they had received, but were also creative editors (redactors), who arranged, altered, and shaped the traditions in order to present a particular understanding of Jesus and his teachings. In other words, scholars began to recognize that the Gospels were not simply historical accounts, but were a special type of literature.
        But to what type of literature do the Gospels belong? If they are not history, at least not in the modern sense of the term, then what are they? During most of this century the dominant answer has been that the Gospels are in a class by themselves; they represent a new literary genre. According to this view, the author of the Gospel of Mark, the first Gospel to be written, produced a new kind of literature, unlike any writing that had been published before. Mark basically expanded and preserved in writing the kerygma, the preaching, of the early church. The core element of the kerygma of the church was the proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Mark took these stories and added to them oral traditions about the life and teachings of Jesus, resulting in a literary genre unparalleled in the ancient world.
        Recently more and more scholars have become dissatisfied with this understanding of the Gospel genre. They argue that although the Gospels are not exactly like other writings of the ancient world, they do bear enough resemblances to certain types of ancient literature to call into question the claim that the Gospels are a unique type of literature. What then are the predecessors of the Gospels? What are their literary role models?
        Scholars have focused on ancient biographies as the best parallels to the canonical Gospels. Examples of pre-Christian Greco-Roman biographies include Xenophon's Memorabilia and Isocrates' Evagoras. Later examples include Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars and Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Charles Talbert, whose research has facilitated the quest for finding the genre of the Gospels, has defined ancient biography as “prose narration about a person's life, presenting supposedly historical facts which are selected to reveal the character or essence of the individual, often with the purpose of affecting the behavior of the reader.”⁶ In biographies the activities, accomplishments, and teachings of an individual often were presented to dispel erroneous understandings of the person and to present a model that was to be followed by the readers. David Aune, another proponent of the view that the Gospels are biographies, notes that Greco-Roman biographies are of several types and that the Gospels are not exactly parallel to any of the Greco-Roman biographies. He argues that the Gospels represent an adaptation of ancient Greco-Roman biographies.⁷ The Gospel writers, then, roughly followed a literary convention that would have been familiar to first-century readers. The earliest readers of the Gospels likely would have viewed the works as biographical, as accounts of the life of Jesus.
        One must be cautious, however, in too quickly identifying the Gospels as biographies. Modern biographies are different from ancient biographies. Modern biographers are usually interested in portraying the psychological development of an individual and the factors that influenced and shaped a person's character and development. Such were not concerns of ancient biographers. Furthermore, even though ancient biographers wrote with historical intentions, ancient understandings of history and the methods and sources available to them for determining historical accuracy were different from that of modern writers. A certain amount of fiction and exaggeration was allowed and even expected in ancient biographies. Since ancient biographers and historians had little access to the speeches and sayings of their subjects, an accepted technique was to create speeches that were deemed appropriate to the occasion. For example, Thucydides, a Greek historian of the fifth century BCE, describes how he used speeches. Thucydides was one of the more scrupulous historians according to modern historiographical standards, but even he states that at times he resorted to creating speeches that were suited to the speaker and the situation. Thucydides wrote:

With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said.⁸

2.2.1.2.2  Literary Context
 

2.2.1.2.3  Literary Structure
 

2.2.1.3 Historical Issues

2.2.1.3.1 Time/Place Markers

2.2.1.3.2 Interpretive Issues

2.2.1.3.3 Central Theme

2.2.1.3.4 Exegetical Outline
 

2.2.1.4 Conclusions

2.2.1.4.1 Applicational Theme

2.2.1.4.2 Expositional Outline

2.2.1.4.3 Sermon Brief
 
 

Created by   a division of   All rights reserved©