EXPLICATING THE LOGIC OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT

HIGH FIDELITY LEARNING

EXPLICATING THE LOGIC OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT

Andrew Garza, Msc Psy

High Fidelity, or Hi-Fi, audio refers to the high quality of sound reproduction in which the playback is very true to the original recording. This means that there is minimal noise or distortion. The term is commonly used to describe home audio systems of a certain quality, although some people believe that it should adhere to higher standards. In 1966, the German Institute for Standardization established standards for frequency response, distortion, noise, and other defects in an effort to standardize the term. High fidelity learning involves a student accurately reproducing the material taught by a teacher.

Over half of a century ago, in 1948, Claude Shannon published his epic paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Shannon had the foresight to overlay the subject of communication with a distinct partitioning into sources, source encoders, channel encoders, channels, and associated channel and source decoders. Shannon's ideas have implications that were (at least fifty years ago) well beyond the immediate goals of communication engineers and of Shannon himself. These include insights for linguists and for social scientists addressing broad communication issues. Thanks to Shannon, Wilbur Schramm, Carl Hovland, Kurt Lewin, Paul Lazarsfeld, and Harold Laswell each helped in the formation of institutes where scholars could pursue communication study programs full-time. Research in this field is extensive and scattered. Because communication is a basic, perhaps the basic, social process, it shares the interest and attention of all the Biblical and social sciences that are concerned with thinking.

Thinking has a logic, but not all thinking is logical. Logic can refer to the validity of an inference and can also refer to a coherent interrelation between elements in a system. It's the second part that I want to use concerning the interrelatedness of the elements of thought.

The logic of thought is as follows: whenever we think, we think for a PURPOSE within a POINT OF VIEW based on ASSUMPTIONS leading to IMPLICATIONS and consequences. We use CONCEPTS, ideas and theories to interpret INFORMATION in the form of data, facts, and experiences in order to answer QUESTIONS, solve problems, and resolve issues.

Reading, writing, speaking, and listening are modes of communication of thought and are all "dialogical" in nature. That is, in each case there are at least two logics involved, and there is an attempt being made by someone to translate one logic into the terms of another. A successful communication process occurs when the receiver understands the message (decodes the logic) just as the sender understood it (encoding of their logic). Of course, this does not happen at a 100% success rate as there are many factors involved in both the encoding and decoding processes and general “noise” in the system (signal-to-noise ratio). Other important noise variables affecting the success of the communication process include the “fields of experience.” The fields of experience factors are numerous, and the best way to categorize these factors would be language, culture, personal history, and geographical locations of the sender and receiver, respectively. The more of a shared variance between the participants’ fields of experience, the higher the probability of a successful communication process

What is the significance of this communication process to a student of the Biblical text? Where communication becomes part of our educational goal is in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. These are the four modalities of communication which are essential to education and each of them is a mode of reasoning. Each of them involves problems. Each of them is replete with critical thinking needs. Take the apparently simple matter of reading a chapter of the Biblical text. The author has developed his thinking in the book, has taken some ideas and in some way represented those ideas in extended form. Our job as a reader is to translate the meaning of the author into meanings that we can understand without any feedback. This is a complicated process requiring critical thinking every step along the way. What is the purpose for the book/chapter? What is the author trying to accomplish? What issues or problems are raised? What data, what experiences, what evidence are given? What concepts are used to organize this data, these experiences? How is the author thinking about the world? Is his thinking justified as far as we can see from our perspective? And how does he justify it from his perspective? How can we enter his perspective to appreciate what he has to say? All of these are the kinds of questions that a critical reader raises.

Furthermore, each of these dimensions of reasoning could be looked at from the point of view of the "perfections" of thought, those intellectual standards which individually or collectively apply to all reasoning. (Is it clear, precise, accurate, relevant, consistent, logical, broad enough, based on sound evidence, utilizing appropriate reasons, adequate to our purposes, and fair, given other possible ways of conceiving things?) And a critical reader in this sense is simply someone trying to come to terms with the text. So, if one is an uncritical reader, writer, speaker, or listener, one is not a good reader, writer, speaker, or listener at all. To do any of these well is to think critically while doing so and, at one and the same time, to solve specific problems of communication, hence, to effectively communicate.

In simple terms, communication involves the exchange of ideas between at least two people. When reading, the reader must understand the thoughts and reasoning of the author, and the critical reader must carefully analyze and decode the author's logic in order to analyze and evaluate and internalize the ideas presented in the text. This process of critical analysis allows the reader to create their own understanding of the text and its meanings, and to the best of their ability, to understand the meanings intended by the author. It can be argued that knowledge of Hebrew is indeed important in explicating the logic of the Bible, as it can provide a deeper understanding of the text and help to avoid misunderstandings that can occur due to language barriers.

“To do well in Biblical exegesis, I must begin to think Hebraically. I must not read the books of the Bible as a bunch of disconnected stuff to remember but as the thinking of a Hebrew scholar. I must myself begin to think like a Hebrew scholar. I must begin to be clear about Hebraic purposes (What are Biblical authors trying to accomplish?). I must begin to ask Hebraic questions (and recognize the Biblical questions being asked in the lectures and studies). I must begin to sift through Biblical information, drawing some Hebraic conclusions. I must begin to question where Biblical information comes from. I must notice the Hebraic interpretations that the author forms to give meaning to Biblical information. I must question those interpretations (at least sufficiently to understand them). I must begin to question the implications of various Biblical interpretations and begin to see how Hebraic authors’ reason to their conclusions. I must begin to look at the world as the Biblical authors do, to develop a Hebraic viewpoint. I will read each chapter in the Bible looking explicitly for the elements of thought in that chapter. I will actively ask (Biblical) questions from the critical thinking perspective. I will begin to pay attention to my own Biblical thinking in my everyday life. I will try, in short, to make Biblical thinking a more explicit and prominent part of my thinking.”

This overly simple information-processing model is an essential road map to thinking like a Bible scholar. The information-processing approach analyzes how individuals attend to information, encode it, store it, retrieve it, manipulate it, monitor it, and create strategies for handling it.

When various types of stimuli are detected, the brain constructs useful information about the world on the basis of what has been detected, and we use this constructed information to guide ourselves through the world around us. Attention is the focusing of mental resources on certain but not all stimuli. Attention improves cognitive processing for many tasks. At any one time, though, people can pay attention to only a limited amount of information which requires certain strategies to overcome the limitation.

Memory is the retention of information over time. Information that is attended to must be encoded by transducing visual information, auditory information, chemical information, or haptic information into the language of the brain which involves chemical and electrical changes of neuronal synapses. Depending on which memory system is activated (short-term and long-term), storage can take place for a short duration, or up to a lifetime. Sensory memory has a large capacity and is of a short duration. Short-term memory has a small capacity and short duration. Long-term memory is an almost unlimited amount of capacity but being very “stingy,” requires certain strategies to insure retention.

Thinking is the mental manipulation of representations of knowledge about the world stored in memory. Thinking allows us to take information, consider it, and use it to build models of the world, set goals, and plan our actions accordingly.

Schemas are organized bodies of information stored in memory. The concept was first pioneered by Sir Frederic Bartlett and best demonstrated by the party game “telephone” based on his research. Schemas are based on prior categorization of object, places, people, and other things affect what we attend to, how it is encoded, how it is stored, and how it is recalled.

To explicate the logic of an author (or sender) schemas must first be formed in the mind of the reader (receiver). Not only must data be stored in memory, but in a “logical” or systematic fashion. At this point, a distinction must be made between components of data and what are the results of manipulation of data. Data can be in the form of facts. Facts are verifiable information and can be the weight of an atom or the date of the end of World War II. Opinions are or should be well reasoned conclusions based upon facts. Beliefs are conclusions not based upon facts and are unverifiable or unfalsifiable. And prejudicial thought is poorly reasoned thought based on facts and can be falsified.

"Make It Stick" by Peter Brown, Henry Roeddiger, and Mark McDaniel outlines several memory techniques that can help improve long-term retention of information:

1. Spaced Repetition: Spacing out studying sessions over time rather than cramming helps to reinforce memories and increase long-term retention.
2. Interleaving: Mixing up the subjects you study helps to promote deeper understanding and better retention.
3. Elaboration: Relating new information to what you already know helps to create connections in your memory, making it easier to recall later.
4. Self-Explanation: Explaining material to yourself helps to reinforce understanding and aids in the creation of memory connections.
5. Generation: Creating new material from what you have learned, such as summarizing or generating questions, helps to promote deeper understanding and stronger memory.
6. Retrieval Practice: Quizzing yourself and practicing recalling information helps to strengthen memory and increase long-term retention.

These techniques can be combined and tailored to best fit the individual learner's needs and preferences.

Modern notion of knowledge is shifting from the ability to recall information to the ability to find and use information. Just as all thought has a logic, but not all thinking is logical, critical thinking requires higher order thinking skills, but higher order thinking skills are not critical thinking. Higher order thinking skills are necessary, but not sufficient regarding critical thinking. Bloom’s taxonomy is an excellent source for defining higher order thinking skills that are required in critical thinking.

Critical thinking involves actively and objectively evaluating information and arguments in order to arrive at a well-supported conclusion. It involves the examination of the clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, and logicalness of thoughts and ideas, and the recognition that all reasoning is based on assumptions and perspectives. Additionally, critical thinking requires recognizing that all reasoning is directed towards specific goals and objectives, and that data and information must be interpreted within their appropriate context. To think critically, one must be aware of the possible issues and problems that can arise in thinking and be willing to question and assess the standards and assumptions that underlie thought and understanding in any given field.

Here is a correspondence between Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking model.

I suggest that to use the Paul-Elder model of critical thinking to explicate the logic of the books of the Bible, that each book be analyzed for its purpose, key questions, key information, key concepts, main inferences, main assumptions, implications, and point of view. The person performing the analysis then uses the intellectual standards of clarity, accuracy, precision, breadth, depth, logicalness, relevance, significance, and fairness. In addition, the person performing the analysis to explicate the logic of the Bible needs to possess the intellectual traits of humility, autonomy, integrity, courage, perseverance, empathy, confidence in reason, and fairmindedness.

This model can result in dialog rather than debate when it comes to difficult issues, doctrines, and interpretations of the Biblical text. The following is a fictional account of a dialogical discussion:

Once upon a time, there were two individuals, named Tom and Jane, who were both trained in the Paul-Elder model of critical thinking. They were discussing a controversial theological doctrine, and both were eager to engage in a dialogical manner.

Tom began by presenting his perspective on the doctrine, explaining his reasoning and evidence for his stance. Jane listened attentively and acknowledged the reasonableness of Tom's argument. However, she pointed out that she had some concerns about the accuracy of some of the evidence he had presented.

Tom responded by demonstrating intellectual humility and fairness, acknowledging that there may be some gaps in his knowledge and that he was open to further evaluation. He appreciated Jane's observations and asked her to elaborate on her concerns.

Jane explained that she had some doubts about the historical context of the evidence that Tom was using and whether it was relevant to the current discussion. She also mentioned that she felt that the evidence lacked depth and breadth, and that she would like to see a more comprehensive examination of the issue.

Tom responded by demonstrating intellectual courage and integrity. He acknowledged that Jane's observations were valid and that he needed to do further research in order to provide a more comprehensive examination of the issue. He also expressed confidence in reason and intellectual perseverance, indicating that he was willing to engage in a thorough evaluation of the issue in order to arrive at a more informed and fair-minded conclusion.

In the end, both Tom and Jane demonstrated intellectual empathy and fair-mindedness as they continued their discussion, exploring the doctrine from different angles and evaluating it using the intellectual standards of clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, significance, logicalness, breadth, depth, and fairness. They both left the discussion with a deeper understanding of the issue and a greater appreciation for each other's perspectives.

Alfred Adler, the Austrian psychologist, believed that the purpose of reading a book is to gain a better understanding of the world and of oneself. He emphasized the importance of active reading, where the reader engages with the text and critically evaluates the author's ideas and arguments. Adler recommended that readers ask questions, make connections to their own experiences, and consider the wider social and cultural context in which the book was written. By doing so, Adler believed that readers could gain new insights, expand their knowledge, and develop their own thinking and problem-solving skills.

Adler advocated the following steps when reading a book:

Preparation: Before reading, Adler suggested that readers gather information about the author, the historical context, and the book's content and purpose. This helps to establish a framework for understanding the text.

Active Reading: Adler encouraged readers to engage actively with the text by highlighting, taking notes, and asking questions. This helps to ensure that the reader is paying attention and actively processing the information.

Critical Evaluation: Adler emphasized the importance of critically evaluating the author's ideas and arguments. This means considering the evidence, reasoning, and perspectives presented in the text and making judgments about their validity.

Reflection: After reading, Adler recommended that readers reflect on what they have learned and how it relates to their own experiences and knowledge. This helps to internalize the information and make it more meaningful.

Application: Adler encouraged readers to apply what they have learned by using it to solve problems, make decisions, and improve their own lives and the world around them.

By following these steps, Adler believed that readers could gain a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the books they read.

Knowing Hebrew can be helpful in explicating the logic of the Bible, but it is necessary. While having knowledge of the original language of the Old Testament can provide a deeper understanding of the text, there are many resources and tools available in other languages that can assist in the critical analysis of the Bible. These include translated versions, commentaries, and biblical studies that provide insight into the cultural, historical, and literary context of the text.

Additionally, critical thinking and analysis skills are important in explicating the logic of the Bible in addition to language proficiency. The Paul-Eder critical thinking model, for example, can be applied regardless of the language of the text, and focuses on evaluating the arguments, evidence, assumptions, and conclusions presented in the text.

In conclusion, while knowledge of Hebrew can be useful, and it is a determining factor in the ability to explicate the logic of the Bible, a combination of critical thinking skills and access to resources in other languages can provide a solid foundation for a thorough analysis of the text.

Putting It All Together Using the Paul-Elder Model of Critical Thinking

And “How to Read a Book”

By Alfred Adler

1. Analysis: Rules for Finding What a Book or Chapter is About
2. Briefly read the book/chapter and classify the book/chapter according to kind and subject matter.
3. State what the PURPOSE of the whole book/chapter is about with the utmost brevity.
4. Can you state the purpose clearly?
5. Logically, what is the objective of the reasoning?
6. Are you precise?
7. Have you identified the most significant problem?
8. Enumerate its major parts in their order and relation and analyze these parts as you have analyzed the whole.
9. Define the QUESTION or QUESTIONS the author is trying to answer.
10. Are there other ways to think about the question more precisely?
11. Can you divide the question into relevant sub-questions?
12. Is this a question that has one right answer, or can there be more than one reasonable answer to be more in-depth?
13. Which of the significant facts are most important?
14. Does this question require judgment rather than facts alone?
15. Interpretation: Rules for Interpreting a Book/chapter's Content
16. Reread the chapter/book to grasp the author's leading propositions by dealing with the most important INFORMATION
17. To what extent is the reasoning supported by relevant data?
18. Do the data suggest explanations that logically differ from those given?
19. How clear, accurate, and relevant are the data to the question at issue?
20. Was sufficient data gathered to reaching a reasonable conclusion?
21. Come to terms with the author by interpreting the key CONCEPTS.
22. What relevant key concepts and theories are guiding the reasoning?
23. What alternative explanations might be possible, given these concepts and theories?
24. Are you clear and precise in using these concepts and theories in your reasoning?
25. Know the author's INFERENCES, by finding them in, or constructing them out of, sequences of sentences.
26. To what extent do the data support the conclusions?
27. Are the inferences consistent with each other?
28. Are there other reasonable inferences that should be considered?
29. Determine which of the QUESTIONS the author has answered, and which not; and of the latter, decide which the author knew he had failed to solve.

III. Criticism: Rules for Criticizing a Book/chapter as a Communication of Knowledge

1. General Maxims of Intellectual Etiquette
2. Exercise intellectual humility by not engaging in criticism until you have completed your outline and your interpretation of the book/chapter. (Do not say you agree, disagree, or suspend judgment, until you can say "I understand.")
3. Exercise intellectual integrity by not disagreeing disputatiously or contentiously and demonstrating that you recognize the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion by presenting good reasons for any critical judgment you make.
4. Exercise intellectual empathy by actively taking the point-of-view of the author.
5. Special Criteria for Points of Criticism
6. Identify the author’s ASSUMPTIONS.
7. What assumptions were underlying the INFERENCES?
8. Are the assumptions justified?
9. How were the assumptions shaping the point of view?
10. Which of the assumptions might reasonably be questioned?
11. Identify the author’s POINT OF VIEW.
12. What is the point of view?
13. What insights is it based on?
14. What are its weaknesses?
15. What other points of view should be considered in reasoning through this problem?
16. What are the strengths and weaknesses of these viewpoints?
17. Are you fairmindedly considering the insights behind these viewpoints?
18. Identify the IMPLICATIONS of the reasoning.
19. What implications and consequences follow from the reasoning?
20. If we accept this line of reasoning, what implications or consequences are likely?
21. Show wherein the author's analysis or account is incomplete.