Week 2 Dialogue
Lesson 5.1
1. The authors of IBI list five essential qualifications that should characterize interpreters if they are to interpret accurately. Place these in the order of most to least important, in your view, with a short defense at the end to support your order. Would you eliminate any or add others you believe are more or equally important to these?
2. How would you respond to someone who said, “The Holy Spirit showed me that this the meaning of this verse”? What is the role of the Spirit versus the role of methods (and methodology) in getting at the proper meaning?
3. Someone wrote: “There is no such thing as presuppositionless interpretation.” Do you agree or disagree and why?
4. Under the topic of presuppositions about that nature of the Bible, which do you think are crucial? Would you add or delete an included by the authors of IBI? Defend your answer.
5. In our own words explain how the Bible can evidence both unity and diversity. Do you think that one takes precedence over the other, and if so, which and why?
6. Do you agree with the authors’ presupposition that the goal of hermeneutics is to discover the meaning of the text that the biblical writers or editors intended for their readers to understand? Is this realistic or possible? Is this better than the alternative goals?
7. Define how the authors used preunderstanding and explain why the topic is important. How do preunderstandings differ from presuppositions?
8. The authors urged the readers to test their preunderstandings (to prevent them from becoming blinders to the true understanding). Which of the four types of preunderstandings do you sense that you may have the greatest need to be tested, and perhaps, changed? (Recall that are: informational, attitudinal, ideological, and methodological.)
9. Did you find the image of the hermeneutical spiral to be useful? Why or why not?
10. If all interpreters bring their unique presuppositions and preunderstandings to their reading of the Bible can there ever be an objective interpretation?
11. Is objective interpretation important or necessary? Why or why not? What is at stake?
Lesson 6.1
1. Can there be multiple meanings in a biblical text that we seek to interpret? If not, explain why. If yes, where would they come from and how might you identify them?
2. What do the authors of IBI mean by “author-centered textual meaning”? Is this a worthy goal for interpreters? Are other goals just as good or even preferable?
3. The authors of IBI raise the perspective of reader-response interpretation again. Why does this approach enter into a discussion of the goal of interpretation? How would you respond to people who say that meaning only occurs when readers create meaning in their reading of the text?
4. Since we stand removed so far in time from the formation of the biblical documents, can we have any certainty that the events they recorded actually happened? Does it matter one way or the other, as long as God speaks through our encounter with those accounts? Is it possible to validate our interpretation—that is, to have a high degree of confidence that one interpretation is likely to be the more correct than the competing alternatives? Why or why not?
Lesson 6.2
1. How does Macbeth feel about his wife’s death? Defend your answer with specifics from the speech.
2. What is the general mood of Macbeth’s speech? Explain.
3. Do the Scriptures also reflect this same mood, or do you detect another one (or other ones)? Identify them and defend your answer.
4. Do the biblical texts give you any insight into what Macbeth is saying?
5. Why does Macbeth call it a “dusty death?”
6. Often it’s true that we learn by analogy. In Shakespeare’s passage, to what four things is life compared? What is the author telling us about life?
7. Shakespeare intended to convey multiple meanings or levels of meanings in this passage, just as the psalmists and the writer of Job intended their texts to work on more than one level. What are the levels of meaning (literal and figurative) of speech by Macbeth?
8. Can you be sure your interpretation of Macbeth’s speech is correct? Why or why not? What might ensure its validity?
