*

INTRODUCTION TO
POST-MODERN HERMENEUTICS:
[another scripture essay by textman]

1. Is a Rational & Faithful Reading of the Word Possible?

2. What Comes First: Reader Or Text?

3. On the Relativity of Interpretations

4. The Legacy of the Scribes & Pharisees

5. On the Need for Complexity

6. On Not Taking Things at Face Value

7. The Five New Testament Traditions

8. On Piously Degrading the Prophet

9. A Logos-Based Hermeneutics

Dialogues on the Essay:

Re: PoMo Hermeneutics/1 (+2)

Re: PoMo Hermeneutics/1
Re: PoMo Hermeneutics/3 (+3)

More Abusing the Prophets
On Getting Lost Among the Details

On Defending the Early Christian Prophets

The Cyber-Prophet Makes a Prophecy or Two!
Re: PoMo Hermeneutics 8

INTRODUCTION TO
POST-MODERN HERMENEUTICS

1. Is A Rational And Faithful Reading Of The Word Possible?

"Brethren, do not be as children in your thinking!
Yes, be like babes in doing evil; but
in your thinking, be mature" (1Cor 14:20).

/ Forum: TheologyOnLine – Philosophy & Theology / 31Oct2001 /
.
 In order to read the Bible well the believer must have a good knowledge of hermeneutics; for the plain fact is that all readers interpret the text, whether they are aware of it or not. Usually this interpretation occurs ‘on the fly’ and (for the most part) unconsciously. But an undisciplined and irrational method of interpretation is obviously incapable of bringing the believer to a proper understanding of the text; for the simple reason that such ways of reading are not well grounded in the truth of things (ie. history/ reality). Respect for the Word of God demands fidelity to *ALL* truth, as well as a clear recognition of the need for a method of interpretation that places the sacred text before (and above) the Reader (and his/her assumptions and opinions as to what the text says and means).
.
 Yet for most believers interpretation routinely proceeds the other way, such that whatever the text says is made to ‘fit’ whatever specific beliefs, opinions, and theology the individual reader happens to favor. More scientific (ie. rational and disciplined) modes of interpretation, such as those used by Bible scholars, are only slightly less haphazard in their approach. Thus although basic hermeneutical principles are acknowledged by all the scribes and pharisees, and usually incorporated into a general interpretive scheme, it often happens that methodology is sacrificed to theology.
.
 Thus, for example, most Bible scholars will agree in principle with the idea that the best witness to any given time period are those documents that originated in that time frame, and that other (later) documents are necessarily of secondary value only. That seems simple enough, yet in practice Bible scholars and theologians routinely treat primary and secondary documents as if there were no real differences between them. Thus a study of Paul's epistles often involves considerable use of Lk-Acts; which is a confused mixing of first century and second century sources. But most scholars approve of such disgraceful methodology by simply denying that Lk-Acts is a second century document.
.
 In essence, their theology and/or faith prevents a clear recognition of the derivative nature of Lk-Acts, and allows them to treat Lk-Acts *AS IF* it were a primary source. Needless to say, such a procedure fairly reeks of bad faith, and clearly demonstrates that the offending scribe still prefers his theological biases over fidelity to fundamental hermeneutical principles. And since the scribes and pharisees can't be trusted to exhibit a sufficient level of respect for the Text (by way of a rigorous and consistently applied methodology), it therefore falls to the individual believer to develop his or her reading skills as much as possible.
.
 Given the current situation of hermeneutical chaos, and the almost total lack of competent guides, it is hardly surprising that so few are able to maintain a rational and faithful approach to the scriptures. One thing that may help the reader forward to a more fruitful and enlightened reading of the Word of God is to cultivate the ability to recognize shabby interpretation whenever and wherever you come across it. This takes a little effort, to be sure, but it can be done by any sensible believer who takes the Bible seriously.
.
 Now all interpretations can be judged according to one key characteristic that is basic to all hermeneutical approaches. How do we decide if any particular interpretation is good or bad? Basically it all boils down to the way that the textual evidence is handled. Simplistic, literal, and superficial approaches (such as those favored by fundies) are inadequate because they are incapable of distinguishing between the various traditions within the text. Thus, for example, the idea that the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and eternal prevents many readers from acknowledging that the texts change over time (ie. during the process of transmission and translation). Here piety and theology together conspire to deny the plain fact that additions tend to creep into the text over time.
.
 So if one cannot recognize, for example, that the beginning and ending verses of 1Peter are, in fact, late additions to the text of the original autograph, then we have no choice but to accept the literal meaning of the opening verse, and therefore conclude that the apostle Simon-Peter is the author. Now this conclusion is simple and easy for those who despise a historical-critical approach to the text; but it is also a conclusion that is entirely false, and therefore inevitably leads to a distorted understanding of the epistle as a whole, as well as the author’s intentions in writing it.
.
 Thus we see that the way in which the evidence of the text is treated is fundamental to our overall understanding and appreciation of the sacred scriptures. Those who tend to idolize the Bible are accordingly their own worst enemy; for their arrogance and vanity prevents them from clearly recognizing the text for what it is. A much better (ie. more rational AND faithful) approach is to attempt to let the text speak for itself; and this can only be done by consistently refusing to impose our own personal beliefs, opinions, and theologies upon the text. If the reader can learn to do even this much, then you have taken the first major step in breaking away from the oppressive legacy of the scribes and pharisees.
.
                       - the almost ignored one – textman ;>
x