Biblical Hermeneutics

Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views edited by Stanley E. Porter & Beth M. Stovell. IVP Academic, 2012. 224 pages. ISBN: 9780830839636

Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views is a look at five different views of Biblical Hermeneutics: The historical-critical/grammatical view by Craig L. Blomber; the literary/postmodern view by F. Scott Spencer; the philosophical/theological view by Merold Westphal; the redemptive-historical view by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.; and the Canonical view by Robert W. Wall. Because of my interest in the philosophical/theological view of hermeneutics, I will discuss that view.

First, a general overiew of what it is and is not. First, it is not only about interpreting the Bible. It includes interpretation of literary criticism, theology, and law. Second, it is more than interpreting texts. Third, it is not a method for interpreting texts. Gadamer says it is that the "hermeneutical phenomenon is basically not a problem of method at all." Gadamer and philosophical hermeneutics explores what people actually do when they interpret.

The hermeneutical circle is a part of philosophical hermeneutics. The idea is that "when we interpret texts we presuppose and bring with us an idea of the whole that guides our reading of the parts." Another aspect of the hermeneutical circle is that our view of the author shapes our interpretation of the text and vice versa.  Mainly for Gadamer, Heidegger and Ricoeur, the hermenuetical circle is a "matter of presuppositions in general and does not focus on the whole part-relations." Understanding is "relative to the presuppositions of the interpreter." In other words, we do not come to a text with a blank slate. We interpret through our beliefs, culture, and historical situation. Basically, we interpret from a tradition, either consciously or unconsciously. Gadamer attempted to rehabilitate the use of prejudices, basically meaning to pre-judge. The basic idea is that we come to the text with certain ideas that we will revise as we engage the text.

It is falsely thought that philosophical hermeneutics kills the author. This controversy basically concerns "the degree to which the author determines the meaning of the text." Does the author owns the meaning of the text? There is romantic hermeneutics which argues that the interpreter's job is to recover the "author's inner experience." The second view, which is similar, is to reproduce the meaning of the author. Philsophical hermeneutics thinks the interpreter reproduces and produces the meaning of the text. Gadamer asserts, "Every age has to understand a transmitted text in its own way, for the text belongs to the whole tradition whose content interests the age in which it seeks to understand itself. The real meaning of a text, as it speaks to the interpreter, does not depend on the contingencies of the author and his original audience. It is certainly not identical with them, for it is always co-determined also by the historical situation of the interpreter. . . . Not just occasionally but always, the meaning of a text goes beyond its author. That is why understanding is not merely a reproductive but always a productive activity as well . . . It is to say that we understand in a different way, if we understand at all." It seems this view does justice to the author, reader, and interpretive act. Westphal notes that E. D. Hirsch Jr. "is so eager to make the author sovereign that in quoting Gadamer he completely leaves out the 'merely' and the 'as well.' He then complains that that for Gadamer the interpreter can ignore the text and attribute to it any meaning that may be desired. I expect more responsible reading from my undergraduates." Jacques Derida says the original meaning acts as a  "guardrail." The text does not just mean anything.  Westphal calls this the double hermenutic. The first hermeneutic asks what the text meant to its original audience. The second hermeneutic asks, "What is God saying to us here and now through these words of scripture?" The first concerns exegesis and the second interpretation. Westphal says what Hirsch fails to see is "that a text is both determinate and indeterminate. It places limits on interpretation, to be sure, but it also remains open to different meanings in different contexts unanticipated by the author." In other words, there are limits to what meanings is placed on a text. A text cannot mean anything.

There are specific strengths to the Philosophical/theological hermeneutics. First, it takes seriously the author and the interpreter. Second, it accepts the historical distance between the text and the interpreter. Third, the theological reading follows the Church Fathers and the medievalists view that scripture should form us and transform us. It is more than requiring information or knowledge of a text. Fourth, it takes seriously the historically situated situation of the reader. It is only through our beliefs, values, and traditions that we can interpret the text. The text does not explain itself. It must be interpreted. I find these strengths true to what I know about the act of reading. A possible weakness might not putting enough attention on the author. A second possible weakness is that it looks like relativism to certain believers. However, it seems to be to be a middle way between relativeness and absoluteness. Only God can see with a God-eyes-view. As long as we are earth we see only partially and dimly. We cannot have absolute certainty. We walk by faith and not by sight. This view seems to take serious the biblical view of human beings. There is a God, but we are not Him.