Interpretation, Hermeneutics, Theological Method
INTERPRETATION, HERMENEUTICS, THEOLOGICAL METHOD
Virgil Warren, PhD
The process we’re describing here shows the blending of interpretation and theological method. In practical discussions, eliminating another viewpoint can take the following pattern: Instead of hoping to disprove the alternate idea, we go about eliminating that viewpoint by showing with each passage used to support it that there are other natural ways of reading it. When we follow this procedure with each passage used to support the viewpoint, the alternative idea is at best a matter of opinion rather than certainty. Certainty arises from primary proof, that is, evidence that fits with only one viewpoint rather than two or more.
The above observations point up several matters. One is the nature of scripture: that scripture throughout is operating out of the same general picture (inerrancy, infallibility, accuracy, truthfulness, etc.).
Another consideration is canonicity—what writings belong to the authoritative body of literature. A subset of that consideration is what books were written by Paul, for example—whether he wrote only the basic four (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians), whether the pastorals belong to him, and so forth.
Another matter deals with source criticism, literary criticism, and the like. Breaking up the gospels, for example, into a set of sources that were redacted by some unidentifiable person greatly reduces the context even within a given book, because the assumption is lost that these unknown writers of sources were operating out of the same understanding of the Christian faith. The impact of such fragmentation is obvious, then, as with the documentary hypothesis for the Pentateuch, in source theories for the gospel, the Book of Acts, and any other writing. At best, context and connection can be rooted only in the perception of the redactor/author in distinction from the events themselves. Admittedly, every writer of history does this very thing since that writer is not recording everything. The choice of material and the connection between parts of the flow of events is impressed on the raw data. Inspiration in scripture, then, is the bailout for accuracy of connection and that context.
Adequate concept inventory comes into the picture because there must be present in the interpreter’s mind all the ideas and forms of thought that appear in the biblical content. If those forms of thought are absent, he will fudge the biblical content over into something that is similar to some idea in his own mind. As a matter of fact, this last consideration further bleeds off into an understanding of the origins of rationality in the human brain and assumes such viewpoints as the belief that we are born with the forms of knowledge while experience gives us the content of knowledge.
Proper patterns of thinking involve both formal and informal fallacies of thought.
How language operates is usually an intuitive thing in the minds of typical people. The difficulty often arises when the normal characteristics of language usage are not kept the same in biblical interpretation as they are elsewhere in human language communication. In one direction, students of scripture do not allow language to have its normal flexibility, variety, and richness of usage that exists elsewhere. They, for example, tend to bring in restrictive principles of usage like the idea that literal usage is to be assumed unless it cannot work in a given case. The “literal” is called “clear,” and other approaches are considered to be “twisting scripture” to avoid its “obvious” meaning.1 Such an approach breaches the more fundamental principle that authorial intent establishes the meaning of statements. In the other direction, there has been an attempt to justify additional linguistic principles like fourfold interpretation. Such ideas are rooted in the more basic notion that since God is using the language, He can and will do more with it than when humans use it; hence, hidden meanings, mystical interpretation, and the like. The problem, of course, with reducing or adding principles of interpretation in biblical studies is that we lose verification and falsification as tests of what some statement means.
A second dimension of how language operates in interpretation concerns the variances of usage from one language to another. The scriptures that we read today were written a long time ago in other languages. Furthermore, especially in New Testament studies, the writers of the Greek texts that we have, had their usage of language affected by the patterns found in Hebrew idiom. Occasionally, then, reading New Testament Greek calls for being aware of possible Semitic influences of usage together with a more basic problem of translating and understanding biblical content as expressed in modern languages.
These considerations show the connections between many disciplines in biblical study.
The truth itself is “simple so that a wayfaring man need not err therein.” The issues raised here about interpretation deal with getting to that truth and keeping it distinguished from other ideas that look similar.
________
1Not literal over figurative: cp. Matthew 15 leaven of the Pharisees but leaven meant teaching/influence. John 3, “born again,” which Nicodemus mistakes as meant literally.
christir.org