Inductive - BIBle Study

I n d u c t i v e

B I B L E

STUDY

A Comprehensive Guide to the

Practice of Hermeneutics

David R. Bauer

Robert A. Traina

Foreword by Eugene H. Peterson

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 3 1/11/11 8:33:38 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

Published by Baker Academic

a division of Baker Publishing Group

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

www.bakeracademic.com

Printed in the United States of America

transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the

prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bauer, David R.

Inductive Bible study : a comprehensive guide to the practice of hermeneutics / David R.

Bauer, Robert A. Traina.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes.

ISBN 978-0-8010-2767-3 (cloth)

1. Bible—Hermeneutics. 2. Bible—Study and teaching. I. Traina, Robert A. (Robert An-

gelo), 1921– II. Title.

BS476.B39 2011

220.601—dc22 2010034320

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of

Scripture quotations labeled ASV are from the American Standard Version of the Bible.

Scripture quotations labeled KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible.

Scripture quotations labeled RSV are from the Revised Standard Version

tian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 4 1/11/11 8:33:38 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

This book is dedicated to the memories of

Wilbert Webster White and Howard Tillman Kuist,

pioneers, teachers, interpreters,

men who loved God and God’s Word

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 5 1/11/11 8:33:38 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 6 1/11/11 8:33:38 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

vii

Contents

List of Figures ix

Foreword by Eugene H. Peterson xi

Preface xiii

Abbreviations xv

Introduction 1

Part 1 Theoretical Foundations 13

1 Inductive Study 17

2 Transjective Study 28

3 Intentional and Rational Study 38

4 Re-Creative Study 42

5 Direct Study 50

6 Comprehensive and Integrated Study 53

7 Individual and Communal Study 57

8 Compositional Book Study 63

9 Canonical Study 66

10 Flexible Procedural Study 71

Part 2 Observing and Asking 75

11 Survey of Books-as-Wholes 79

12 Survey of Parts-as-Wholes (Divisions, Sections, Segments) 143

13 Focused Observation 159

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 7 1/11/11 8:33:38 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

viii

Contents

Part 3 Answering or Interpreting 177

14 Selecting Questions and Formulating Premises 179

15 Drawing Inferences from the Premises 239

16 Implementing Interpretation 249

Part 4 Evaluating and Appropriating 279

17 Description of Evaluation and Appropriation 281

18 Implementing Evaluation and Appropriation 326

Part 5 Correlation 337

19 Character and Practice of Correlation 339

20 Implementing Correlation 344

Epilogue 361

Appendix A: General Discussion of Induction and

Deduction 363

Appendix B: Presuppositions in Contemporary Hermeneutical

Discussion 370

Appendix C: Selectivity 385

Appendix D: The Use of Original-Language Resources 388

Appendix E: Critical Methods in Inductive Bible Study 392

Appendix F: Logical Outlines 400

Bibliography 405

Author Index 433

Subject Index 439

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 8 1/11/11 8:33:38 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

List of Figures

1 Relation of methodological foundations to speciﬁc process 72

2 Three levels of observation 78

3 Biographical general materials in 1 Samuel 83

4 Main units identiﬁed through major shifts of emphasis 90

5 Subunits identiﬁed through major shifts of emphasis 91

6 Main units identiﬁed through structural relationships 92

7 Main units and subunits in the book of Joel 93

8 Recurrence 95

9 Contrast in Psalm 1 97

10 Climax in the book of Acts 99

11 Geographical and biographical particularization in the book of

Genesis 103

12 Geographical and biographical generalization in the book of Acts 105

13 Hortatory substantiation in the book of Revelation 108

14 Negative cruciality in 2 Samuel 109

15 Positive cruciality in the book of Acts 109

16 Interrogation in the book of Genesis 113

17 Interchange in the book of Micah 116

18 Interchange in the book of Hebrews 117

19 Inclusio 118

20 Inclusio in Psalm 150 118

21 Chiasm 119

22 Intercalation in Mark’s Gospel 121

23 Segment survey of 2 Timothy 3:1–4:8 152

24 Seeing 2 Timothy 3:1 as preparation for 3:2–4:8 157

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 9 1/11/11 8:33:38 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

List of Figures

25 Detailed analysis of Psalm 8 174

26 Armation and limitation 198

27 Signiﬁer and signiﬁed 200

28 Continuum of transcendence 294

29 Structure of biblical ethics 301

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 10 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

Foreword

Fifty-six years ago I drove into New York City, negotiated my way through

the trac of midtown Manhattan, and enrolled in a seminary on East 49th

Street. Later that week I sat in a classroom led by a professor who over the

next three years would profoundly change my perception of the Bible, and me

with it, in ways that gave shape to everything I have been doing for the rest of

my life. This is not an exaggeration.

A couple of years before I entered his classroom, Professor Traina had writ-

ten the book Methodical Bible Study, which was used throughout the seminary

as a text. The book that you hold in your hands, Inductive Bible Study, is an

expansion of that early text by Professor Traina and his colleague Professor

Bauer. As I read this sequel, memories of my ﬁrst reading come alive again. I

am giving witness to that early but never-diminishing delight.

I grew up in a Christian home and from an early age was familiar with the

Bible. I read it daily, memorized it, and on entering into adolescence argued

with my friends over it. But quite frankly, I wasn’t really fond of it. I knew it

was important, knew it was “God’s Word.” To tell the truth, I was bored with

it. More often than not, it was a ﬁeld of contention, providing material for

“truths” that were contested by warring factions. Or it was reduced to rules

and principles that promised to keep me out of moral mud puddles. Or—and

this was worst of all—it was ﬂattened into clichés and slogans and sentimental

God-talk, intended to inspire and motivate.

It only took three or four weeks in Professor Traina’s classroom for me to

become aware of a seismic change beginning to take place within me regarding

the Bible. Until now I and all the people with whom I associated had treated

the Bible as something to be used—used as a textbook with information about

God, used as a handbook to lead people to salvation, used as a weapon to de-

feat the devil and all his angels, used as an antidepressant. Now incrementally,

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 11 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

xii

Foreword

week by week, semester by semester, my reading of the Bible was becoming a

conversation. I was no longer reading words—I was listening to voices; I was

observing how these words worked in association with all the other words on

the page. And I was learning to listen carefully to these voices, these writers

who were, well, writers. Skilled writers, poets, and storytellers who were artists

of language. Isaiah and David were poets. Matthew and Luke were masters of

the art of narrative. Words were not just words: words were holy.

I employ the term seismic to describe what I was experiencing. Here is

another term for what happened: paradigm shift—a totally dierent way

to look at and interpret and respond to what I have been looking at all my

life. Like the paradigm shift from Ptolemy to Copernicus. The shift from the

world of Ptolemy to the world of Copernicus totally changed the way we

understand the cosmos. Ptolemy told us that the sun revolved around the

earth, and that made perfect sense for a long time. Copernicus told us that

the earth revolved around the sun, and suddenly we were “seeing” things, the

same things that we had been seeing all along, but now in a far more accurate

and comprehensive way.

When I entered Professor Traina’s classroom, I had a Ptolemaic understand-

ing of the Bible: I was the center (my will, my questions, my needs) around

which the Bible turned. After three years in that classroom, I was a thorough-

going Copernican: the Bible was the center (God’s will, Christ’s questions,

the Spirit’s gifts) around which I turned.

The experience was not merely academic. The passion and patience that

permeated that classroom instilled in me an inductive imagination: ﬁercely

attentive to everything that is there and only what is there, alert to relation-

ships both literary and personal, habitually aware of context—the entire world

of creation and salvation that is being revealed in this Bible. And always the

insistence that I do this ﬁrsthand, not ﬁltered through the hearsay of others

or the ﬁndings of experts. His faculty colleagues shared the work, but it was

Professor Traina’s intensity and comprehensiveness that penetrated my mind

and spirit in a way that shaped everything I would do and am still doing as a

pastor, professor, and writer. And not just my vocational life—also my per-

sonal life, my marriage and family, my friends and community and church.

The inductive imagination continued to develop into a biblical imagination.

And not only for me. My sense is that this way of reading the Bible—and

living the Bible—has been transformative for thousands; probably by now the

number must run into the millions.

Eugene H. Peterson

Pastor Emeritus, Christ Our King Presbyterian Church, Bel Air, Maryland

Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology, Regent College, British Columbia

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 12 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

xiii

Preface

Our intention is to present rather comprehensively our understanding of the

approach to the study of the Bible known as inductive Bible study, and to direct

this presentation primarily to seminary students and those engaged in Chris-

tian ministry. But we anticipate that this volume will be useful also to scholars

who are engaged in advanced study of the Bible and who are conversant with

contemporary hermeneutical discussions. Moreover, we hope that it will be

serviceable as a textbook for certain college and university courses. Though

this book is based on serious hermeneutical reﬂection and will at points engage

current hermeneutical issues, its primary purpose is to provide practical guid-

ance in original, accurate, precise, and penetrating study of the Bible.

This book serves as a sequel to Methodical Bible Study, by Robert A. Traina,

which many have used as a reliable introduction to inductive Bible study. We

are gratiﬁed by the inﬂuence and popularity of Methodical Bible Study and are

encouraged that it continues to be used as a textbook in numerous seminaries

and colleges around the world; yet that book is somewhat dated, for it has

not been revised since its appearance in 1952. Moreover, whereas Methodical

Bible Study was intended to be a general description of inductive Bible study,

arranged topically in terms of major components, this book oers a speciﬁc,

orderly process that readers can apply directly as they work with particular

biblical texts. In addition, it reﬂects signiﬁcant developments in the presentation

of method that have come about as the result of years of classroom instruc-

tion, further reﬂection, and new insights into hermeneutics that have emerged

since 1952. Together we have a combined sixty years of seminary teaching of

inductive Bible study since Methodical Bible Study ﬁrst appeared.

A number of clariﬁcations in the area of inductive Bible study have emerged

over the years, many of them related to developments in hermeneutical reﬂec-

tion among biblical scholars in general. This volume cites and interacts with

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 13 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

xiv

Preface

contemporary literature. For the inductive study of Scripture to have any future,

it must converse with the major issues and considerations that are surfacing

in the burgeoning discipline of hermeneutics.

In addition, we are convinced of the necessity for a fuller treatment of the

principle of induction, the implications of induction, and the importance of

an attitude of induction. Although inductive Bible study involves certain steps

that are performed, it is not solely a matter of techniques. It involves, above

all, a commitment to an inductive posture, which means radical openness to

the meaning of the text, wherever a study characterized by radical openness

might lead.

This book is the result of collaboration between Dr. Robert A. Traina, a

graduate of The Biblical Seminary in New York (now New York Theological

Seminary) and for many years a member of the faculty of that institution, and

later academic dean and F. M. and Ada Thompson Professor of English Bible

at Asbury Theological Seminary, and Dr. David R. Bauer, a student of Dr.

Traina at Asbury and currently dean of the School of Biblical Interpretation

and Proclamation and the Ralph Waldo Beeson Professor of Inductive Biblical

Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. In personal and communal study, we

have found that the inductive approach as set forth in this book has caused

the Bible to come alive in ways that far surpassed our greatest expectations.

Through this process we have consistently encountered the God to whom

the biblical text bears witness. We hope that all who read and use this book

will ﬁnd the assistance that will enable them to experience the same kind of

excitement and encounter.

We gladly thank those who have played a role in the production of this

book. We are grateful to Mrs. Judy Traina Seitz, who assisted greatly in its

editing and organization. We are indebted to many students and colleagues

who read early drafts of the manuscript and oered helpful suggestions. And

we are grateful to Mr. James Kinney, director of Baker Academic at Baker

Publishing Group, for his encouragement and meticulous care in bringing

this book to publication.

David R. Bauer

Robert A. Traina

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 14 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible

ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library

BDAG W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-

English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English

Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1907. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979, 1996, with

Strong’s numbering

BLS Bible and Literature Series

FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature

GBS Guides to Biblical Scholarship

Hermeneia Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible

IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching

IBT Interpreting Biblical Texts

ICC International Critical Commentary

Int Interpretation

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series

LCBI Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation

LEC Library of Early Christianity

LXX Septuagint

NASB New American Standard Bible

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 15 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

xvi

Abbreviations

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

NTL New Testament Library

NTS New Testament Studies

OT Old Testament

OTL Old Testament Library

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel

and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–67

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.

Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and Heinz-Joseph Fabry. Translated by

J. T. Willis et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 16 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

Introduction

Meaning of Inductive Bible Study

We should begin by indicating what we mean by induction. The term induc-

tive is used in both a broader and a narrower sense. In the broader sense, it

involves a commitment to move from the evidence of the text and the realities

that surround the text to possible conclusions (or inferences) regarding the

meaning of the text. In this sense, inductive is practically synonymous with

evidential over against deductive, which is presuppositional, involving a move-

ment from presuppositions with which one approaches the text to a reading

of the text intended to support these presuppositions.

This broader sense of inductive, with its stress on the movement from evi-

dential premises to inferences, implies an emphasis on inductive, inferential

reasoning: one examines the evidence in order to determine what may properly

be inferred from the evidence for the meaning of passages. This broader sense

of inductive also involves the attempt to help students understand and process

the critical interaction between their preunderstandings, including theological

creeds and doctrinal commitments, and the witness of the biblical text.

In the narrower sense, inductive Bible study pertains to a movement in the

history of hermeneutics that traces its beginnings to the work of William Rainey

Harper, of Yale and the University of Chicago, and his associate Wilbert Webster

White, a Yale-trained Hebraist and the founder of The Biblical Seminary in New

York.

These scholars were concerned that the almost exclusive attention paid

to higher-critical issues—such as trying to reconstruct sources that presumably

lie behind the ﬁnal form of the text, which focused on more or less speculative

elements behind the biblical text rather than on the text itself—rendered the

1. The authoritative resource for the life and work of Wilbert Webster White is still Charles R.

Eberhardt, The Bible in the Making of Ministers: The Scriptural Basis of Theological Education;

The Lifework of Wilbert Webster White (New York: Association Press, 1949).

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 17 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

study of the Bible lifeless and devoid of clear signiﬁcance for Christian faith

and ministry. Consequently, they insisted that students should give priority to

examining the scriptural text in its ﬁnal form, although eventually they should

consider evidence from historical and even historical-critical examination of

the text. This procedure involved (1) direct study of the biblical text in the

student’s mother tongue,

with the hope that students who had opportunity

and ability would supplement the study of the Bible in the vernacular with

original-language analysis; and (2) special attention to the ways in which the

immediate and broader-book context of passages and the literary structure of

passages themselves inform students’ understanding of their meaning.

Although the origin of inductive Bible study in the narrow sense is associated

especially with the founding of The Biblical Seminary in 1900, this approach

had precursors in the history of interpretation and has, since the beginning

of the twentieth century, enjoyed widespread dissemination. Over the years it

has been part of the instruction in such institutions as Princeton Theological

Seminary, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, Fuller Theological Sem-

inary, the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries, Columbia Theological

Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, and Azusa Paciﬁc University, to say

nothing of the hundreds of schools outside North America that have adopted

the inductive study of the Bible. In addition, inductive Bible study has signiﬁ-

cantly inﬂuenced the work of several scholars of global reputation.

Inductive Bible study is probably best known, however, in its lay-oriented

forms. For example, it has become central in the discipleship development

program of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship; and it has been introduced to

millions through the writings of popular authors. One of the advantages of

inductive Bible study is that it can contribute to the most sophisticated and

serious biblical scholarship while also equipping laypersons to study the text

for themselves.

Emphases in Inductive Bible Study

This more narrow sense of induction involves a number of emphases that

reﬂect both the convictions of Harper and White and the ways in which induc-

2. Thus inductive Bible study was often called “English Bible,” as reﬂected, for example, in the

curriculum of The Biblical Seminary in New York. This nomenclature accurately represents the

emphasis that was given to the study of the Bible in the vernacular but was problematic in that

(1) it assumed an English-language environment and was insuciently global in its reference; (2) it

gave the impression that inductive Bible study was limited to vernacular translations, whereas

from the beginning it was acknowledged that inductive Bible study would be ideally executed

with texts in the original languages; and (3) it seemed to suggest that the use of the vernacular

was the central concern when actually the principle of induction was the operative issue, and

the role of the vernacular was understood to be a tactical concession to the limits of linguistic

equipment on the part of most students as they pursued their inductive work in the Bible.

Inductive Bible Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 18 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

tive Bible study has developed over the years. First, it emphasizes the meaning

of the ﬁnal form of the text. This attention to the ﬁnal form arises from two

considerations. The ﬁrst consideration is that this ﬁnal form is, in fact, the

only text that actually exists today. All earlier sources or redactional (edito-

rial) processes that may lie behind the text and could have contributed to the

development of the text are more or less speculative in terms of whether they

ever existed or their speciﬁc character or shape. In any case these earlier stages

of the tradition no longer have a material existence but are scholarly construc-

tions. As we shall see, an inductive approach recognizes that source theories

and redactional reconstructions might at times be helpful in the interpretation

of the ﬁnal text and should be employed in interpretation, with the proviso

that their tentative character and their limitations must be kept in mind. But

it is both unwise and unrealistic to focus on entities that do not (presently)

have an existence independent of the minds and judgments of scholars and

about whose (past) existence scholars themselves disagree. The second consid-

eration is that the church has accepted this ﬁnal form of the text as canonical

Scripture.

Indeed, when one talks about the Bible, one assumes a canonical

collection and one implies a canonical form. Thus inductive Bible study gives

priority both in emphasis and in sequence to the direct study of the text in its

ﬁnal form. Subsequently, the use of background knowledge, considerations of

the developments of traditions that lie behind the ﬁnal form of the text, the

history of interpretation, and so forth are incorporated into an overall process

that has as its starting point the examination of the text itself and has as its

goal the meaning of the text in its ﬁnal, canonical shape.

3. The implications of the canon of Scripture for the centrality of the study of the ﬁnal form

of the text are most thoroughly and vigorously set forth by Francis Watson. See esp. his Text,

Church, and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 1994), 15–17, 60–63, 70–77, 221–40. See also Robert W. Wall, “Canonical Context and

Canonical Conversations,” in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and

Systematic Theology, ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 165–82.

But the view that the ﬁnal form is the proper focus for the study of the Bible as the church’s

canon is universally identiﬁed with the “canonical approach” of Brevard S. Childs. See esp. his

Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). In this regard,

Childs’s approach should be distinguished from the “canonical criticism” of James Sanders,

who insists that the notion of canon points not to the centrality of the ﬁnal form, or canonical

shape, of the text, but rather to the dynamic process of the readaptation of traditions within

the community of faith, both as reﬂected within the Bible itself and as carried on within the

interpretive practice of the church throughout its history. See James Sanders, Torah and Canon

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972); idem, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism,

GBS (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); idem, From Sacred Story to Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). For a helpful comparison of the canonical approaches of Childs

and Sanders, see Frank Spina, “Canonical Criticism: Childs versus Sanders,” in Interpreting

God’s Word for Today: An Inquiry into Hermeneutics from a Biblical Theological Perspective,

ed. Wayne McCown and James Massey, Wesleyan Theological Perspectives 2 (Anderson, IN:

Warner, 1982), 165–94.

Introduction

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 19 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

A second emphasis of inductive Bible study is the form of the text, giving

serious attention to the ways students can identify for themselves literary

structure and can show how such structure informs the meaning of the text.

It also pays attention to the ways in which literary genre has a bearing upon

construal of meaning. This emphasis upon structure and genre is supported

by the consideration that communication never comes as pure content but

that form and content are always inextricably bound together in the com-

municative process.

The concern with the ﬁnal form of the text leads to an emphasis upon the

study of the biblical book as, in most cases, the basic literary unit in the Bible’s

ﬁnal form. As G. Campbell Morgan suggests, the Bible is not so much a book

as it is a library of books.

Consequently, an inductive approach insists that

students recognize both the importance of interpreting individual passages in

light of their function within the world of the book in which they stand and

the importance of grasping the message of books-as-wholes.

Inductive Bible study involves an emphasis upon students developing their

own skills in the study of the Bible. This development of skill is accomplished

through students’ consistent and constant ﬁrsthand study of the text itself,

using background information, critical approaches, commentaries, and other

secondary sources in the process of an overarching program that focuses—in

both its starting point and goal—upon their ability to construe the meaning

of the ﬁnal form of the text. Students can best understand hermeneutical

principles and can most eectively learn how to study the Bible as they them-

selves pursue an experimental practice of actually observing, interpreting,

and appropriating the biblical text.

Inductive Bible study also emphasizes practicability, with a concern for

adapting the methodological program to realistic expectations of what readers

of the Bible, including those preparing for and involved in Christian ministry,

can reasonably achieve as they seek to incorporate the principle of induction

into their own useable process. This emphasis arises out of the conviction that

inductive Bible study seeks to tailor a methodical approach to all aspects of

the existence of the biblical text, which includes the relationship of the reader/

interpreter to the biblical text and to the dynamic study of that text. Thus

an inductive approach attends not only to the nature of the biblical text but

also to the nature of the student and to the realities that exist in the situation

of most students.

Inductive study of the Bible likewise emphasizes a broad methodical process

that involves particular orderly steps or phases. Inductive Bible study should

not be considered as one speciﬁc exegetical approach that can be set alongside

4. G. Campbell Morgan, The Study and Teaching of the English Bible, rev. E. D. De Rusett

(London: Hodder & Stoughton; New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1910), 30–31. Also available

online at http://www.gcampbellmorgan.com/studyteach.html.

Inductive Bible Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 20 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

other exegetical approaches, such as form criticism, redaction criticism, or

narrative criticism.

Rather, it is a holistic program that seeks to incorporate

the values of the various speciﬁc exegetical approaches or procedures within

it, and it is methodical in recognizing that the practical reality of the actual

study of the Bible requires serious attention to certain steps performed in a

certain sequence.

A further emphasis of inductive Bible study has to do with the dynamic

interrelation between the various speciﬁc steps or phases in the study of the

Bible over against a rigidly linear model that understands these phases to exist

in isolation from one another or that assumes the possibility of completing

a certain phase and never returning to it. Rather, an inductive approach is

spiracular: it is characterized by a spiral in the sense that once students move

from observation to interpretation, they will see the need to correct some

of the observations they have made and will make additional observations.

When students move from interpretation to contemporary appropriation,

they will recognize additional aspects of interpretation and perhaps correct

some dimensions of their interpretation. In other words, although one can and

should dierentiate among the various speciﬁc steps, these steps constantly

impinge upon one another in the actual practice of inductive Bible study. Thus

the issue is emphasis rather than mutual exclusion.

Finally, inductive Bible study emphasizes the development of a holistic and

integrative process that seeks to be comprehensive in the following ways:

1. It tries to incorporate within its model all legitimate evidence, wherever it

is found, including insights from critical approaches and every appropri-

ate exegetical operation in the study of the text, but it seeks to do so at

the most eective point in the process and in the most eective fashion.

2. It tries to deal with the text at its various levels: the book, the division,

the section, the segment, the paragraph, the sentence. Inductive Bible

study also provides for studying the canon-as-a-whole so as to assist in

tracing the meaning of themes throughout the Bible and the relations

between the two Testaments.

3. It tries to address the range of the hermeneutical concerns, which in-

cludes initial observation of the text,

interpretation, considerations of

5. For helpful discussions of these speciﬁc exegetical (and esp. critical) approaches, see John

Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster

John Knox, 1996); I. Howard Marshall, ed., New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles

and Methods (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, eds.,

Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues (Nashville: Broadman & Hol-

man, 2001); Joel B. Green, ed., Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

6. Including interrogation, that is, raising questions of these observations in an attempt to

probe their interpretive signiﬁcance.

Introduction

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 21 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

contemporary appropriation and proclamation, and the correlation of

the teachings of individual passages and books into a biblical theology

and a biblically based theology. This approach rejects a textual atomism

or disjunction that would fail to take connections within the text seri-

ously. And it also rejects a methodological atomism that would present

various approaches or steps in exegetical work as self-standing and as

functioning in isolation from one another.

Although we have just described major emphases that have come to charac-

terize inductive Bible study, we acknowledge that those who practice inductive

Bible study, even in the more narrow sense of the tradition of Harper and

White, do not adopt an absolutely monolithic model; rather, in a variety of

ways practitioners have developed inductive Bible study within certain broad

parameters.

Our present work emphasizes the comprehensive and synthetic dimension

of inductive Bible study so that it may be methodical, spiracular, holistic,

and integrative. As explained, holistic and integrative describe a compre-

hensive approach that at the most eective point and in the most eective

way incorporates every legitimate exegetical operation of the study of the

text, including critical methods. Indeed, one of the purposes of Methodical

Bible Study (1952) was to relate inductive Bible study, as it had been prac-

ticed, to mainstream exegesis: established interpretive techniques employed

by scholars around the world. This emphasis upon comprehensiveness and

integration is not a departure from the vision of Harper and White but

a development of their vision and an articulation of some of their basic

concerns. We contend that inductive Bible study is essentially a comprehen-

sive, holistic study of the Bible that takes into account every aspect of the

existence of the biblical text and that is intentional in allowing the Bible in

its ﬁnal canonical shape to speak to us on its own terms, thus leading to ac-

curate, original, compelling, and profound interpretation and contemporary

appropriation.

Two Signiﬁcant Clariﬁcations

At this point we raise two important issues to clarify the presentation that

follows in the remainder of the book. First, we recognize that one of the

chief features of an inductive approach is tentativeness and open-endedness;

therefore we present our discussion in this book as a working hypothesis,

which we invite readers to consider and to judge regarding its legitimacy, ap-

propriateness, practicality, and helpfulness. The method itself should submit

to this hypothetical character of induction. We do not claim that this is the last

word on induction; the principle of induction requires that a person subject

one’s understanding of induction or of the inductive process to correction

Inductive Bible Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 22 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

and development. Indeed, we are open to suggestions of improvement and

correction: if we become convinced on evidential grounds that the process

as a whole or any speciﬁc feature of it is problematic and justiﬁes change or

alteration, we are prepared to make the necessary adjustments.

Second, the process we are about to describe is presented in its ideal form.

We recognize that readers will need to adapt these principles and procedures

to their own abilities, interests, and time constraints. Readers will want to

consider what types of modiﬁcations and shortcuts they can incorporate to

make the process workable for them. We present the process in the large and

with signiﬁcant detail because readers will be able to decide how to adapt and

abbreviate only if they have a sense of the entire procedure. Indeed, the full-

blown process we discuss is especially relevant for critical and dicult passages

in the Bible; many passages will not require the kind of full implementation

of method described here.

Overview of Presentation

Part 1, “Theoretical Foundations,” is the ﬁrst of the book’s ﬁve parts and

presents the hermeneutical bases for the inductive approach as set forth in the

remainder of the book. It deals with such issues as the meaning of induction

over against deduction, the relation between induction and presupposition,

and the major characteristics of an inductive approach.

Part 2, “Observing and Asking,” begins the presentation of the actual

implementation of an inductive approach to the biblical text. This part, along

with the remainder of the book, uses 2 Timothy 3:16–17 as an example of each

of the stages discussed along the way. We will also include many additional

speciﬁc examples from the Bible. Observation involves the discipline of being

attentive to all elements within the text and serves as the basis for raising

questions, the answering of which constitutes interpretation.

Part 3, “Answering or Interpreting,” discusses in depth the various kinds

of evidence used in the process of interpretation. This part also gives careful

attention to the process of reasoning inferentially from evidential premises

to inferences.

Part 4, “Evaluating and Appropriating,” explores the process of examin-

ing the teachings of passages, as derived from interpretation, to determine

which of these teachings can be legitimately appropriated directly in other

times and places (including our own) over against those that are so closely

bound to the original situation as not to be directly applicable. This part also

gives attention to the process of examining contemporary situations so as to

understand them in depth and to determine if, and to what extent, the pas-

sage might pertain to a given contemporary situation. Additionally, this part

explores the speciﬁc creative and constructive process of relating the teaching

of a biblical passage to contemporary situations.

Introduction

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 23 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

Part 5, “Correlation,” discusses the movement from the teaching of indi-

vidual passages and books to the construction of a New Testament or Old

Testament theology, and then to a biblical theology. This part also discusses

ways in which all of these elements relate to, and might contribute to, a bibli-

cally based systematic theology.

Suggestions for Reading

In anticipation of some of the problems that commonly arise in this process—

and because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as the saying

goes—here are a few suggestions that we hope will prepare readers for better

understanding and using the forthcoming material.

First of all, readers should try to see the methodical process of study as a

whole before trying to apply any of its parts. Such perspective is necessary

because of the interrelatedness of the various steps. They are so interde-

pendent that understanding the purpose and function of any one of them

is impossible without knowing its relation to what precedes and follows.

Consequently, we urge readers to peruse the entire book before trying to use

its suggestions or even before making a serious attempt to fully understand

any of its parts. Further, readers should take advantage of the introductions

and summaries that precede the various sections in order to note carefully

their contents and organization. In these ways readers will be able to see the

interrelations between the steps and thus to apply each individual step more

intelligently.

We also suggest that when readers are ready to apply the material they

use either the exercises given throughout the book or comparable exercises.

The inclusion of exercises suggests certain similarities between developing a

methodical approach to biblical passages and developing a strong physique.

Both are accomplished primarily through actual practice, and both are gradual

and consequently demand patient perseverance. Just as a strong body cannot

be realized by merely reading a discussion on the subject or by taking a few

easy lessons, a mere perusal of this book will not produce the ability to do

inductive Bible study. This discussion will prove of real worth if it indicates

certain lines of action that readers may pursue and in that pursuit they teach

themselves how to do inductive Bible study. Such a process will take years if

not an entire lifetime. The exercises pertain to Jonah and Mark, thus oering

students an opportunity to apply the principles to both Old Testament and

New Testament texts. Readers may also ﬁnd our own work and the work of

others on the passages at www.inductivebiblicalstudy.com.

We encourage those who use this book to look up examples in their Bibles

and to make a serious attempt to discover the ways those examples illumine

the ideas to which they correspond. Finding one’s own illustrations for the

various points is helpful.

Inductive Bible Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 24 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

Readers should utilize at least some of the bibliographic suggestions be-

cause the following presentation by no means exhausts the vast ﬁeld of Bible

study.

The discussion must of necessity be in the form of an outline guide

that should be used in collaboration with other books in the ﬁeld. Some of

these books will be indicated in the course of the discussion and others in

the footnotes.

In addition, readers should test for themselves the statements made. We do

not expect readers to accept them unquestioningly. On the contrary, we urge

readers to pursue their own inductive study. And if in so doing they arrive at

conclusions that contradict those of this book, they have not only the privilege

but also the obligation to embrace what they have found.

Readers are likewise encouraged to practice suspended judgment. They are

urged neither to accept nor to reject statements immediately upon reading

them. Readers should give the ideas some time to take eect. If, for example,

some readers are unable to see the purpose of certain suggestions, and if

the suggestions appear to be superﬂuous or even ridiculous, readers should

leave room for the possibility that the suggestions may have a necessary

function and that, given time, that function may become clear. Also, readers

should have speciﬁc and sound reasons for accepting or rejecting certain

ideas. And even after readers have formed conclusions, they need to be will-

ing to change those conclusions if and when new data come to light that

would necessitate such a change. These suggestions are true to the inductive

approach.

Readers should also remember that this book is intended to present a com-

prehensive view of hermeneutics and is primarily designed for those who are

preparing for a Christian professional vocation. However, we are not saying

that readers can make no adaptations or simpliﬁcations. Average laypersons,

for example, must employ a simpler version if they are to study the Bible for

themselves.

But the most important point is to realize that one cannot begin

with abbreviated studies, for abbreviating what is not ﬁrst understood in a

more complete way is impossible. In other words, a more or less ideal con-

ceptualization is requisite for a valid abbreviation.

Readers should also be aware that repetition is purposely employed in

this book as a necessary pedagogical device and in order to insure thorough

presentation. We have tried to conceive of ourselves as personal tutors of

everyone who reads this material. Therefore our primary concern has not been

to use the fewest possible words to describe inductive Bible study but to think

7. For a relatively comprehensive guide to resources in biblical studies, see David R. Bauer,

An Annotated Guide to Biblical Resources for Ministry (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

8. A number of ﬁne books or manuals are intended to introduce laypersons to inductive

Bible study, including David L. Thompson, Bible Study That Works, rev. ed. (Nappanee, IN:

Evangel Publishing House, 1994); Oletta Wald, The Joy of Discovery in Bible Study, rev. ed.

(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975).

Introduction

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 25 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

in terms of eective communication. Repetition is one of the most eective

means of imparting ideas.

Readers should also keep in mind that mechanics are a necessary part of

any worthwhile activity. Einstein became a great physicist because he ﬁrst

learned the laws of physics. Paderewski had to spend hours practicing ﬁn-

ger exercises before he developed the ability to interpret the spirit of great

composers. Neither of these men could have reached his position without

so mastering the mechanics of his ﬁeld that they became second nature to

him and thus the means by which he could delve into the mysteries of the

universe or capture the emotional quality of great music. Eliminate the

mechanics of physics and piano playing, and you eliminate Einstein and

Paderewski. Indeed, every child who has ever learned to play the piano

knows that learning tedious scales is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of

masterful performance.

The same principle should be applied to Bible study. As much as one

might like to avoid the mechanics of Bible study, one must realize that they

cannot be eliminated, for there is no mystical or purely intuitive means for

arriving at scriptural truth. One cannot bypass the techniques of exegesis

and expect to become a profound interpreter of the Bible any more than

one can expect to become a great pianist without mastering the techniques

of ﬁngering the keyboard.

Some students believe that mechanics and the

Spirit are irreconcilable because mechanics necessitate self-discipline and at

times are tedious. One should be careful, however, not to equate the tedious

with the unimportant, for such a mistake would be just as fatal to a Bible

student as to a pianist. Or more positively, one should gladly discipline

oneself to master the mechanics, knowing that though the necessary road

might be hard, the joys to be found at the destination are well worth the

diculties of the journey.

Furthermore, a methodical process should not be made an end in itself.

This points to a real danger because the mechanics might loom so large as to

hide their purpose. As Christian believers, we are convinced that the develop-

ment of a methodical, inductive approach is the means of training the mind

to become a more ﬁt instrument for the operation of God’s Spirit. Because

biblical interpretation involves a rational process, the mind must function

properly if interpretation is to be valid. But the mind’s proper function is not

automatic; therefore the mind needs to be trained, or it might become the

means of negating God’s Spirit. A methodical approach involves a description

of how the Spirit works through the mind and how one might cooperate with

the Spirit so that the Spirit might function freely.

9. We recognize that eective Bible study cannot be reduced to technique but also recognize

that technique is the necessary concretization of attitude, perspective, and theory.

10. This thought introduces the vexing issue of the role of faith in biblical interpretation,

an issue that will be addressed in part 1.

Inductive Bible Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 26 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

The ultimate purpose of mechanics and certainly of this manual, then, is

that readers might through their use in studying the Scriptures come to know

the real author of the Scriptures, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he

has sent. We have recorded the suggestions found on these pages only because

in our own experience the application of this process has enabled us to realize

a more intimate relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Additionally, a

methodical, inductive process may also have value for unbelievers. As such,

it can be utilized to make possible a better understanding of the biblical text

even without a prior faith commitment.

Finally, readers should avoid conceiving of this book as an attempt to dic-

tate a precise and rigid formula for Bible study. We make this suggestion for

the following reasons:

• Theverynatureofthoughtprocessesmakescoercingthemindintoan

inﬂexible pattern or an intellectual straitjacket infeasible. For example,

one might indicate that certain steps should be taken before the inter-

pretive phase of study begins. But at times one’s thoughts will naturally

move to interpretation, especially when the meaning of what is noted

is self-evident. Such elasticity is intrinsic to the mind and should be

respected.

• Individualdierencesalsomakeitimpracticalforonepersontoforcea

stringent formula for Bible study upon others. Now certain basic prin-

ciples might be laid down as essential, ones that cannot be transgressed if

one’s approach is to be inductive; but in the precise application of these

principles, individuals must be left to determine what is most suitable

and eective for them.

• Eveninrelationtothegeneralpatternandconcretestepssuggested,

one must make allowance for interplay. The various phases of study are

interdependent: The ﬁrst phase contributes to the second, and the second

in turn contributes to the ﬁrst. We shall have occasion to call attention

to this principle frequently in the forthcoming discussion. Furthermore,

none of the individual aspects of a study process is ever fully completed.

Therefore, if ﬁnishing the ﬁrst phase were needed before moving to the

second, the latter would never be reached.

For these and other reasons, the contents of the following pages should not

be construed as an exact formula to be followed page for page every time one

studies a given passage. Rather, they primarily involve an analysis of Bible

study that might be used as a basis for formulating a methodical, inductive

approach to biblical passages. Readers must understand this fact if they are

to use the following material. This manual tries to dissect the study process

to discover its component parts. It might therefore be likened to the exercises

used to teach typing, which represent an analysis of the typing process. No

Introduction

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 27 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

one engages in all the typing exercises every time one sends an email, so we

don’t expect that every Bible study will be an exact replica of this book. On the

contrary, readers are urged to take the basic concepts involved in the forthcom-

ing analysis and use them as a foundation for building a methodical, inductive

approach that will suit their own individual talents and needs.

Inductive Bible Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 28 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

Part 1

Theoretical Foundations

At the very outset, any discussion of biblical hermeneutics should address

the issue of method. Hermeneutics deals with the way one thinks about and

executes the practice of studying the Bible. Thus the concern for practice or

performance poses the fundamental question as to how it is to be done, which

is essentially the question of method. This present study of hermeneutics

begins, then, by exploring the meaning of method and the ways in which

method illumines the practice of Bible study.

Our English word method is really a transliteration of the Greek methodos,

which literally means a “way of transit,” a way of moving from one point to

another or from where we are toward our destination. The following brief

deﬁnitions capture the essence of method:

• Webster’s II New College Dictionary deﬁnes method as “a manner or

means of procedure, especially a systematic and regular way of accom-

plishing a given task, . . . an orderly and planned arrangement.”

• JohnDewey,perhapsthemostprominenteducationaltheoristinthe

twentieth century, said, “Method at bottom is but the way of doing things

followed in any given case, . . . the main steps that have to be taken . . .

1. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, s.v. “Method.” In this and the two representative

deﬁnitions that follow, emphasis has been added.

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 29 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

and the crucial points where conditions of growth have to be carefully

maintained and fostered.”

• Inhiscarefulreectiononthewaysinwhichmethod has been deﬁned and

used, Howard Tillman Kuist concludes: “Conceived in its widest possible

scope, method is procedure. And the primary consideration in procedure

of any kind is that it be suited to the end in view. Experience teaches men

that when anything is to be done, some ways are better, certain movements

more eective, than others. . . . Method is the conscious accommodation

of one’s powers to the requirements of the situation.”

To summarize these deﬁnitions, method has

• character—isorderly,systematic(Webster)

• content—hascertainspecicsteps(Dewey)

• criterion—whatisthebestwayormostsuitabletothetask(Kuist)

The basic meaning of method, then, is “the best speciﬁc procedure for

doing anything,” where “best” is determined by what is suitable to the task.

Hence, central to the notion of method is the principle of suitability. A req-

uisite characteristic of method is that it should correspond in nature with its

objective, for it is the means by which the objective is reached. For example,

method applied to throwing a baseball would include, among other things,

gripping the ball ﬁrmly, cocking the arm back, and propelling the ball by a

forward ﬂip of the arm. These steps are true because of the very nature of

throwing a baseball. In pursuing any signiﬁcant activity one should always

ask, What is the nature of the task, and given the nature of the task, what is

the best, most suitable, most eective way to proceed?

The application of the principle of suitability to Bible study involves reﬂect-

ing upon the three major factors involved in the study of the Bible:

1. The Bible

2. The student/reader/interpreter

3. The relationship between the Bible and the student/reader/interpreter

The operative question is, Given the nature of the Bible in all aspects of its

existence, the nature of the student, and the relationship between the Bible

and the student, what is the most suitable way to proceed?

2. John Dewey, “Method,” in Cyclopedia of Education, ed. Paul Monroe (New York: Mac-

millan, 1913), 4:204–5.

3. Howard Tillman Kuist, These Words upon Thy Heart: Scripture and the Christian Response

(Richmond: John Knox, 1947), 47–48.

Theoretical Foundations

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 30 1/11/11 8:33:39 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

We devote the remainder of this part to the presentation of the major

characteristics of proper Bible study. These characteristics stem from our

convictions regarding the nature of the Bible, of the student, and of the re-

lationship between the Bible and the student. We will sometimes make these

convictions explicit, but at other times they will remain implicit. However,

these convictions consistently stand behind all that will be presented in this

enumeration of major characteristics and, indeed, in the presentation of Bible

study throughout the remainder of the book. We emphasize, however, that

these characteristics and the underlying convictions from which they stem

are presented as a working hypothesis. We recognize that they do not possess

anything like a stamp of divine imprimatur but are set forth for the thoughtful

consideration of the reader, who is invited to accept them or reject them, yet

hopefully always on the basis of reasonable and evidential considerations.

Theoretical Foundations

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 31 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 32 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

Inductive Study

Meaning of Induction and Deduction

The present discussion employs the term inductive synonymously with evi-

dential: that is, a commitment to the evidence in and around the text so as

to allow that evidence to determine our understanding of the meaning of the

text, wherever that evidence may lead. Deduction is used synonymously with

presuppositional: that is, a commitment to certain assumptions (whether

stated or implicit) that we allow to determine our understanding of the mean-

ing of the text.

The importance of adopting an inductive approach to the study of the Bible

is based on the principle of suitability, which stands at the center of the very

notion of method. Induction best suits the nature of the Bible, which stands

outside of ourselves and has its own message to speak to us, a message that

has its basis in, and emerges out of, its own social, linguistic, and historical

context. The Bible, as we personify it, beckons us to hear its message on its

own terms; it wishes to speak a new word to us, challenging our presupposi-

tions over against conforming to them. Induction is the method of history

and the humanities, including literature, whereas deduction is the method of

mathematics, which assumes a self-established closed system. But an inductive

approach is appropriate for exploring realities that have an existence of their

own and cannot be contained by a system that we bring to them.

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 33 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

Essential Aspects of Induction and Deduction

An inductive approach to Bible study has two essential aspects: an inductive

spirit, or attitude, and an inductive process that implements such a spirit and

attitude. Ideally an inductive attitude precedes an inductive process, but at

any rate, both must be present and are indispensable for genuine inductive

Bible study.

The test of the inductive spirit is whether one’s approach is characterized

by radical openness to any conclusion required by the biblical evidence. This

attitude is the inner dimension of the inductive approach, while any spe-

ciﬁc process that might be considered inductive is its outer expression and

implementation.

The deductive spirit and the inductive spirit are mutually exclusive. The

deductive spirit is dogmatic and authoritarian, absolute and categorical, char-

acterized by a closed mind. It amounts to hermeneutical absolutism. It does

not entertain the possibility of being in error and therefore is unwilling to

change. It is not open to challenge or dissent. It is resistant to the discussion

of diering views. It is often concerned with seeking supportive proof texts

for a position already held. This dogmatic mentality is well expressed in the

saying “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

The deductive attitude may be motivated by the fear that cherished traditions

are subject to challenge. Such traditions, often based on the acceptance of what

a person has heard preached or taught, may not have been examined critically

in the light of the biblical text. They are sometimes viewed as foundational to

one’s belief system, and the fear exists that an open-minded scrutiny of them

might cause the belief system to crumble.

Persons with this mentality try to control the outcome of Bible study by

indicating in advance the interpretations that should result from the process.

Accordingly, certain creedal presuppositions, including various theological

systems or particular doctrines, are brought to the Scriptures and inevitably

predetermine the outcome of the interpretation of texts.

The process is cir-

cular and self-conﬁrming. In such cases, instead of hearing the text on its own

terms, the interpreter tells the text what it should mean.

Still others have problems with the biblical worldview and consequently

try to interpret the text so that it conforms to their own contrasting world-

view. Thus, instead of focusing at the interpretive phase on the message being

communicated through the text and leaving value judgments until later, they

begin by imposing their own views on the text and reading it accordingly.

For example, some people make an a priori assumption that the universe is

closed and that miracles cannot happen, so they interpret miracle stories as

“myths.” Others begin with the assumption that transcendent divine revelation

1. See James Barr, Fundamentalism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978). See also the discus-

sion in appendix B below.

Theoretical Foundations

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 34 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

is impossible; therefore they understand the text exclusively in terms of the

history of religions, as a record of merely human thinking and striving after

the Divine. Even social and political agendas—such as feminism, liberation

theology, capitalism, or socialism—have been brought to the hermeneutical

process in order to predetermine its outcome. Among the major concerns of

the leaders at the beginning of the inductive Bible study movement were the

so-called assured results of biblical criticism, which those who taught induc-

tive Bible study recognized to be actually a set of assumptions (some of them

better grounded than others, but all of them speculative) that often served as

a prism through which to view the biblical text. One could cite many other

examples of more or less unexamined views that have been used by those with

a dogmatic, deductive spirit.

In contrast, the inductive spirit and the process by which it is implemented

seek to be undogmatic. The inductively minded person welcomes discussion

and even challenges; this eagerness is based on the desire to hear whatever

the text has to say, whether one agrees or disagrees. Such an inductively

minded person recognizes that at a later point one will have opportunity to

make value judgments concerning the message communicated by the text.

Furthermore, one who has this inductive spirit is willing to acknowledge

one’s own fallibility and to begin any interpretation with the statement, “I

may be wrong, but this is my understanding and the evidential reasons for

it.” Such a person is open to changing one’s view if the evidence warrants

it. In fact, the person with a truly inductive spirit will actively seek diering

interpretations and the reasons for them. Even if one does not ﬁnd grounds

to justify a change in one’s own understanding of the text, at least one will

have a better understanding and perhaps a better appreciation for diering

points of view.

If what has been said above about the character of induction is valid, some

of what passes as inductive Bible study is not truly inductive because this kind

of spirit is lacking. One can mimic particular techniques of the inductive

process while harboring a deductive spirit, thereby giving the appearance of

induction without its reality. In such cases the deductive mentality takes over

and becomes dominant at some point in the process.

Fortunately, one can begin with a deductive spirit and eventually adopt an

inductive spirit through a direct study of the text. This transformation often

happens when the inferential process—the process of reasoning from eviden-

tial premises to possible conclusions, which is often used subconsciously—

is brought to the level of consciousness and the tests for its soundness are

applied.

Conversely, one can begin with an undogmatic spirit and go awry because

of the absence of a proper process to implement it; having a radical openness

to the text is not sucient. It is essential to identify a process that truly allows

the text to speak for itself, which is the goal of the person with an inductive

Inductive Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 35 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

spirit. One must avoid divorcing an inductive spirit from an inductive process

if one hopes to genuinely engage in inductive Bible study.

The discussion now turns to a focus on the second component of inductive

Bible study—the inductive process. This process is the attempt to implement

an inductive spirit. The reader must not lose sight of the indispensability of

the inductive spirit, which gives rise to the process. Otherwise the process will

become form devoid of the spirit that gives it meaning and purpose.

The inductive process is the test as well as the expression of the inductive

spirit or attitude. In general, the inductive process is whatever is most eec-

tive and ecient in determining the meaning of the text and thus eectuating

or implementing an inductive attitude. In the following pages, we propose a

speciﬁc inductive process by which we intend to accomplish this goal. We set

forth this process in an undogmatic, inductive spirit because this process too

should be open to discussion and challenge. Readers do need to implement

this process in order to understand it, but once they understand it, we urge

readers to determine for themselves the inductive process that in their judg-

ment best implements the inductive spirit.

Both the deductive spirit and the inductive spirit are expressed in a process

of inferential reasoning that ﬂows from them. Inferential reasoning—drawing

conclusions from premises about the meaning of a passage—is inevitable and

unavoidable in any understanding of the biblical text. The inferential reasoning

may be subconscious or conscious, presuppositional or evidential, dogmatic

or hypothetical, illogical or logical, invalid or valid. One thing is certain: in-

ferential reasoning is always present when interpretation occurs.

One does not need to become skilled in proper inferential reasoning to

gain what the community of faith considers to be a saving knowledge from

the Scriptures; however, those who aspire to leadership in the community of

faith should develop skills in inferential reasoning in order to gain a more

accurate and profound grasp of the scriptural message.

In the process of inferential reasoning, some constants or essentials ﬂow

from both induction and deduction. Both deduction and induction contain two

major components: one or more premises followed by an inference, sometimes

called a conclusion. A premise is a statement or assertion from which one may

causally derive an inference or conclusion. Thus “therefore” or its equivalent

stands between one or more premises and an inference.

In deductive inferential reasoning, one or more deductive premises (which are

presuppositional and absolute) are employed. In inductive inferential reason-

ing, by way of contrast, inductive premises that are evidential and conditional

are employed. Deductive inferences are, like deductive premises, absolute and

unchangeable; on the other hand, inductive inferences are hypothetical and

probable, therefore open to change.

We have been describing the constants or essentials of inferential reason-

ing that exist in both induction and deduction. But the process of inferential

Theoretical Foundations

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 36 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

reasoning also has variables, whether that reasoning is inductive or deduc-

tive. What is variable in both deduction and induction is that in both cases

the premises as well as the inferences may be either general or particular.

Deﬁnitions of induction often describe inductive reasoning as the movement

from particular data to general inference, and some deﬁnitions of deduction

describe deductive reasoning as the movement from general premises to par-

ticular conclusions; yet such deﬁnitions tend to be limited in their perspective

and overlook the dierent ways deduction and induction can be used, as ap-

pendix A indicates. Although in some cases inductive reasoning involves the

movement from particular premises to general inferences and in some cases

deductive reasoning involves the movement from general premises to conclu-

sions regarding particulars, all of this concern with general and particular is

not essential to induction and deduction as such. Both deductive and induc-

tive premises and inferences may be either general or particular, depending

on what is appropriate or suitable in individual cases.

2. This point is well made by Joel Rudinow and Vincent E. Barry, Invitation to Critical

Thinking, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 2004), 147–48.

3. Two factors determine whether the premises and inferences of deduction and induction are

general or particular. One is the nature of the task and of the goal of their use in a given task.

In some cases deductive premises that are general as well as presuppositional and absolute are

required, as is true of mathematical logic, which often begins with general axioms such as that

of Euclid: Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. To the contrary, the deductive

use of general premises in approaching literary texts, such as the Bible, is inappropriate and

unsuitable because of the dierences between mathematics and literature. Literature consists

of particular texts, and any reasoning about them must begin with particular premises based

on those particular texts, not general statements about them.

At the same time, deductive reasoning may begin with particular premises based on particular

literary texts and assume a meaning that is incorrect, thereby leading to unsound inferences.

The issue in this case is not whether the premises are general or particular but whether they are

presuppositional and absolute, or evidential and conditional. Thus deductive premises may be

either general or particular; in addition, as will become evident, both deductive and inductive

inferences may be either particular or general.

The second factor that accounts for these variations is the stage of the reasoning process.

Inferential reasoning is cumulative; it has initial stages, which in turn become building blocks for

subsequent stages. Though initially, in examining literary texts as in the scientiﬁc endeavor, the

premises are necessarily particular, at subsequent stages, when the inferences drawn are in turn

used as premises for further inferential reasoning, the inductive premises may be more general,

though always evidential and provisional. For example, in science the observation of various

episodes of the gravitational pull of the earth may lead to a general inference regarding the pattern

of gravitation, which may then be used as a premise to do further inductive inferential reasoning

in relation to phenomena not previously observed. Similarly, in the Synoptic Gospels one ﬁnds

that Jesus repeatedly refers to himself as “the Son of Man.” On the basis of particular premises

based on this evidence, one may infer that this self-identiﬁcation is, in general, Jesus’s favorite

way of describing himself and his role. This general inference may then be used at a subsequent

stage of inferential reasoning as a general premise on which to draw further inferences as to the

NT’s presentation of Jesus’s self-consciousness and self-understanding, depending in part on

the meaning of “Son of Man.” (The prime examples of the later stages of inferential reasoning

Inductive Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 37 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

To reiterate, what is always constant is that the premises of deductive reason-

ing are presuppositional and absolute, whereas those of inductive reasoning

are evidential and conditional. Accordingly, what is always constant is that

deductive inferences, like their premises, are certain and absolute, whereas the

inferences in inductive reasoning are probable or hypothetical and open to

correction as necessary. Induction and deduction are diametrically opposed

in relation to these constants.

The great danger in the process of inferential reasoning is that it often

begins subconsciously by deductively embracing one or more premises as

axiomatic assumptions, for which adequate evidence is not cited or perhaps

cannot be cited. Often such premises are based upon incomplete or partial

evidence, or upon general impressions, or upon traditions that one has as-

sumed to be valid. The antidote is to raise one’s reasoning process to the level

of consciousness.

The wise action, then, especially in relation to very important passages

and at least some problematic passages, is to write down one’s process of

inferential reasoning. Such an objectiﬁcation of the process will not only

make a person conscious of what is occurring but will also enable one more

eectively to discover whether one is bringing unrecognized assumptions to

the study process and then to test those assumptions.

Inductive reasoning consciously tries to avoid assumptions (or at least tries to

test assumptions), hidden or otherwise, because it intends to develop premises

solely on evidential grounds. Such premises are always open to change and

correction if this is warranted by evidence not previously observed or used.

The inductive person does not seek only evidence that supports one’s point of

view, but rather attempts to observe all of the evidence, whether it agrees or

disagrees with one’s views. Only after such an endeavor is a premise seriously

proposed, although various possible premises may be tested in the process.

The critical question is always, What is the evidence?

As to the inferences, deductive reasoning aims at absolute certainty. Thus

its inferences, like its premises, are dogmatic. Certainty leads to certainty.

Sometimes a valid logical process is followed, though at times inferences are

drawn on the basis of logical fallacies. But even in the case of a valid logical

are found in “correlation”; see part 5.) So both deductive and inductive premises may be either

general or particular. Whether they are one or the other does not itself determine whether they

are deductive or inductive.

What is true of deductive and inductive premises may also be true of deductive and induc-

tive inferences. They may be either particular or general, depending on what is suitable to the

nature and goal of the task at hand and to the stage of the inferential reasoning process. To state

unequivocally that deductive inferences are always particular and that inductive inferences are

always general is to miss the point of these distinctive lines of reasoning. Again, the issue as to

whether the movement is from general to particular or from particular to general is not essential

to either induction or deduction but is contingent upon the nature and goal of the task at hand

and upon the stage of the inferential reasoning process.

Theoretical Foundations

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 38 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

process, one cannot assume that all of the relevant evidence has been found or

is being used properly; thus absolute inferences tend to be problematic. The

deductive interpreter will refuse to acknowledge that inferences are sometimes

unreliable and therefore should not be treated as certain.

Inductive inferences, however, are not only subjected to the test of valid

logic; they are also considered hypothetical and therefore always open to

change. Such inferences may be accepted as “belief” statements; but they are

not necessarily “truth” statements. This distinction is critical because of our

fallibility as human interpreters, including fallibility in knowing when we are

fallible. In addition, whereas deductive reasoning results in stagnancy and

prevents growth in the understanding of the biblical text, inductive reasoning

allows room for growth because it makes possible a change in understanding

the meaning of the text when appropriate.

These changes do not necessarily involve basic creedal armations, such

as the belief that God created human beings in God’s image and likeness, or

that Jesus is the Son of God. Rather, a person may need to change one’s under-

standing of the meaning of the biblical statements and the creedal armations

based on them. An accurate and profound understanding of the meaning and

signiﬁcance of these realities should be the goal of the biblical student.

Illustration of Inductive and Deductive Inferential Reasoning

The litmus test of the presence and practice of the inductive spirit is the

willingness to gather evidence fully and openly for and against the premises

stated and to accept them as conditional (when necessary), along with the

acknowledgment that the inferences drawn are hypothetical and changeable.

Resistance to applying such a test may indicate that the requisite spirit for

genuinely inductive Bible study is lacking. Unless and until such a closed at-

titude changes to one of radical openness, no amount of supposedly inductive

procedures will avail. However, the use of these so-called inductive procedures

may have some value for the deductive person. But under such conditions,

inductive procedures will not have the full value of a truly inductive approach

to the text.

Here are several examples of inferential reasoning that may be used, prop-

erly or improperly, in interpreting the texts mentioned in the premises for

each example. We encourage readers to attempt to identify which of these

arguments are inductive and which are deductive.

4. At times inductive premises could, admittedly, be both evidential and absolute, as is the case

when premises are formulated that contain pieces of raw data whose presence is self-evident (e.g.,

in direct or virtual quotations from the biblical text). However, even here the possible discovery

of additional text-critical or other historical data may render absoluteness problematic.

Inductive Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 39 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

Example 1

P 1 If God covenanted to give all the physical land of Canaan to the ethnic de-

scendants of Abraham (Gen. 17:8),

P 2 and if the Jewish people are Abraham’s ethnic descendants,

I it would follow from the text that the Jewish people will ultimately and

eternally possess all the physical land of Canaan.

Example 2

P 1 If Genesis 1:3–2:1 states that God created all things in six “days,”

P 2 and if a “day” as used here is not a twenty-four-hour period,

I it would follow that this text does not mean that God created all things in

six consecutive twenty-four-hour periods.

Example 3

P 1 It is absolutely certain that God by nature is immutably righteous and

faithful,

P 2 and if God made a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15),

I therefore either it was impossible for God to commit an unrighteous and

unfaithful act by breaking this covenant or if he did break the covenant,

God’s violation could not and would not be unrighteous and unfaithful.

Example 4

P 1 It was necessary for the Son of God to die in order to satisfy God’s wrath.

P 2 Jesus was the Son of God.

I It would follow that Jesus’s death satisfied God’s wrath.

Example 5

P 1 If Jesus’s mission is to fulfill the law and the prophets and not to abolish

them (Matt. 5:17–18),

P 2 and if fulfill means something other than to obey all of the command-

ments that are found in the Law and the Prophets,

I it would follow that Jesus’s mission, according to this passage, was not

necessarily to obey all of the commandments in the Law and the Prophets.

The inductive premises in the previous examples are set forth condition-

ally, though some readers might be inclined to view at least some of them

as absolutes. In the ﬁnal analysis, however, the issue is not whether premises

are presented in conditional form (“if”) but whether they are set forth in the

attitude of openness regarding their validity. Thus, an inductive premise may

5. We take this to be a deductive argument since the ﬁrst premise is presented absolutely,

even though the second premise is presented conditionally and is clearly evidential. If even one

premise of an argument is deductive, it renders the entire argument deductive.

Theoretical Foundations

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 40 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

be stated unconditionally, but with the recognition that the premise may be

wrong. The inductive issue is whether they can be supported by sucient

evidence or whether the converse premises could receive more evidential

support, as well as whether they are are presented with the recognition that

the premises may be wrong. Because the inductive premises expressed are

conditional, the inferences would also need to be considered conditional,

although again some might be inclined to view them as dogmatic. In addi-

tion, the logical test would need to be applied to the inferences: if one accepts

the premises and if the inferences are validly drawn from the premises, they

are unavoidable.

The Community of Faith’s Role in Induction and Deduction

The previous discussion has focused on the individual’s use of induction;

however, induction also has communal implications. The church should be a

community of biblical, theological, and moral discourse. Often such discourse

is discouraged because those with a deductive, dogmatic spirit will not allow

it. In such communities anyone who challenges views held by some or per-

haps most of the members is made to feel unwelcome and even heretical; thus

churches may lack the openness that should characterize true community.

The key to ﬁnding true community and unity is not to avoid issues that may

carry dierent views; rather, it is to have open discussion and the freedom to

challenge all premises and inferences on the basis of an evidential approach to the

biblical text. This practice should be especially true for those who presumably

subscribe to the supreme authority of the Scriptures for faith and practice.

Often a fallible person or group of persons control authoritarian communi-

ties. These leaders posit an ever-widening list of doctrines that one must hold

if one is to be considered orthodox, with no questions asked. The so-called

authorities stand between the reader and the biblical text, much as the hierar-

chy of the Roman Catholic Church did in the period immediately preceding

the time of the Reformation.

The inferential process that lies behind the dogmatic positions taken is

seldom exposed to the inductive tests of evidence and logic. Such a posture

practically contradicts the claim made by these persons of Scripture’s ultimate

authority. The so-called authorities who stand between the individual and the

biblical text, whatever their tradition, have become the ultimate authority.

The call for an inductive spirit is a challenge to such a deductive, dogmatic,

authoritarian approach.

Communities of faith, however, should not be completely latitudinarian.

Christians can agree on many basic and vital biblical issues on the grounds

of an inductive spirit and process. And room should always be left for com-

munities with distinctives. At the same time, an inductive spirit is a call to

exhibit love and respect while hearing the views of others, especially those

Inductive Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 41 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

who are members of the community of faith. It is an acknowledgment that

all have blind spots in relation to which the help of others is needed. Persons

within particular communities should listen to others within and outside the

particular communities of which they are a part, and speciﬁc Christian com-

munities (traditions or denominations) should engage in conversation with

other communities around the biblical text.

Principles Related to Induction

Two critical principles of inductive study as applied to the Bible are of particu-

lar signiﬁcance for those who want to better understand and practice it. First,

at the center of induction is the principle of probability over against absolute

certainty; in an inductive approach, one must always speak in terms of degrees

of probability.

This consideration is due to the evidentiary and inferential

character of induction. For one thing, evidence is sometimes ambiguous; it

will not always clearly lead to a speciﬁc conclusion. Moreover, evidence is

sometimes conﬂicting; one piece of evidence may point to one conclusion,

while another piece of evidence may point to a dierent conclusion. Further,

evidence is often limited; more evidence may surface (one can think here of

the massive amount of new evidence for biblical interpretation that came with

the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi library). Finally,

our understanding of evidence may be limited; we need to realize that our

construal of the meaning of evidence should be open to new insight.

This claim that an inductive approach to the study of the Bible involves

probability should not lead students to a sense of interpretive agnosticism, that

is, the suggestion that we really cannot speak conﬁdently about the meaning of

any biblical passage. One can arrive at an interpretation of at least the basic

sense of almost all passages with a degree of probability so high that one can

talk of virtual certainty. But some biblical passages do have a lower level of

probability for interpretation; in such cases the student must acknowledge that

the interpretation is relatively more provisional. Indeed, in some passages the

evidence is inconclusive, with the result that students must suspend judgment

regarding their meaning.

Second, students who adopt an inductive approach should embrace the

principle of reality, which acknowledges that in fact pure or absolute induc-

tion does not exist. All of us have presuppositions. What is required is that we

do all we can to become aware of our presuppositions and then intentionally

expose these presuppositions to the biblical evidence with a willingness to

change if the evidence requires. As Adolf Schlatter says, “We are freed from

our presuppositions and lifted above them only when we are keenly con-

6. Rudinow and Barry, Invitation to Critical Thinking, 212: “Inductive strength is relative,

which means it admits of degrees” (emphasis original).

Theoretical Foundations

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 42 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study

scious of them.”

This attitude of radical openness to the evidence, wherever

it leads, is the essential character of induction; we might call this attitude the

inductive spirit. Clark Pinnock describes it well: “The lesson to be learned

here is allowing the Bible to say what it wants to say without imposing our

imperialistic agenda onto it; our exegesis ought to let the text speak and the

chips fall where they may.”

In practice, of course, identifying all of the presuppositions that impose

themselves upon our interpretation of a passage may be dicult, but two

processes can assist. The ﬁrst helpful process is to write out explicitly the lines

of inferential reasoning. As we set forth our evidential premises and draw pos-

sible conclusions from these premises, we should be able to identify untested

and previously unacknowledged presuppositions that have crept into our

articulation of the evidence or our inferential reasoning toward conclusions.

The second helpful process is, at the proper time, to engage in dialogue with

others, including the use of commentaries. Others’ interpretations will often

present us with alternative interpretive possibilities and the evidence for these

other possibilities, forcing us to confront the ways in which our own presup-

positions may have intruded into our understanding of the evidence or our

inferential reasoning toward conclusions.

7. Adolf Schlatter, “Atheistische Methoden in der Theologie,” in Zur Theologie des Neuen

Testaments und zur Dogmatik, Kleine Schriften, ed. Ulrich Luck, Theologische Bücherei 41

(Munich: Kaiser, 1969), 142, quoted in Peter Stuhlmacher, Historical Criticism and Theological

Interpretation of Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 47.

8. Clark Pinnock, “Climbing out of the Swamp: The Evangelical Struggle to Understand

the Creation Texts,” Int 43 (April 1989): 155.

Inductive Study

_Traina_InductiveBS_ATV_mw.indd 43 1/11/11 8:33:40 AM

David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study