From Anthony Thiselton: "New Horizons in Hermeutics"
"Texts, first, we argue, open new horizons for readers. Because of their capacity to bring about change, texts and especially biblical texts engage with readers in ways which can productively transform horizons, attitudes, criteria of relevance, or even communities and inter-personal situations. In this sense we may speak of transforming biblical reading. The very process of reading may lead to a re-ranking of expectations, assumptions, and goals which readers initially bring to texts.
Gadamer points out, however, that such a process does not occur inevitably or automatically. Only if we respect the distinctiveness of the horizons of the text as against the distinctiveness of our 0wn reader-horizon can a creative and productive interaction of horizons occur. The distance between the reader and the text performs a positive hermeneutical function. Premature assimilation into the perspectives projected by the horizons of readers leaves the reader trapped within his or her own prior horizons. Worse, in such a case the reader may stand under the illusion that the texts have fully addressed him or her. Still more significanctly, interaction between the two horizons of text and readers will, if premature assimilation has taken place, appear uneventful, bland, routine, and entirely unremarkable.
Within the Christian community the reading of biblical texts often takes this uneventful and bland form. For the nature of the reading-process is governed by the horizons of expectation already pre-formed by the community of readers or by the individual. Preachers often draw from texts what they had already decided to say; congregations sometimes look to biblical readings only to affirm the community-identity and life-style which they already enjoy. The biblical writings, in such a situation become assimilated into the function of creeds: they become primarily institutional mechanisms to ensure continuity of corporate belief and identity.
This is not to deny that prior understanding of biblical texts can become corporately embodied in the tradition which shapes our horizons....Nevertheless interpretations of texts and of earlier traditions can also become institutionalized and fossilized into forms which defeat the original vision which they emerged to serve. Traditions can absorb error, and be overtaken by new understandings and contexts." (Taken from the Introduction P.8-9)
I love this insight into how reading the Bible can simply be a bland reaffirmation of everything we believe before we start to read or a creative confrontation with our own pre-understanding. I am fascinated by the very real danger of our seducing the text of the Bible into speaking our own truth back to us. Perhaps one of the most important signals that this is what is happening is when our reading becomes "uneventful, bland, routine, and entirely unremarkable." What a delicate balancing act it is to listen with benefit to the voice of the living God.
Showing posts with label Hermeneutics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hermeneutics. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Methods of inquiry
In Anthony Thiselton's (The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description) discussion of Heidegger he has some comments to make about the relationship between Heidegger's thought and that of T.F. Torrance with respect to scientific method and the epistemological task. Thiselton writes:
"True 'objectivity,' if this is the right word at all, depends on the appropriateness of the method of inquiry to the obect of inquiry. We do not prescribe the same methods in advance of all inquiries, on the assumption that one particular model of the act of knowledge is the only 'objective' one." (P. 188)
If we attempt to universalize the scientific method as the only appropriate method of inquiry for all objects of inquiry then many possible worlds of knowledge are eliminated as legitimate objects by definition. If the scientific method is the only method of inquiry we have then we have put strict limits on what we can even raise questions about. This is the "if my only tool is a hammer, then every problem is a nail" approach to simplifying the epistemological task.
Andrew Rowell, in his blog, ID in the United Kingdom, comments about the lack of awareness amongst many scientists of the role that a worldview plays in how we think and defend our positions. In his post, "The Darwinist Propaganda Carnival continues...," he writes:
"Thus scientists have crossed over the line between the pursuit of truth to the defence of a worldview (italics and bold type mine). The odd thing is that they do not seem to realise what they are doing. Most of them simply have no concept that there is such a thing as a “worldview” they are so immersed in their own view of the world that they don’t really believe that there can be anything else other than naturalism without it deserving to be in a padded clinic.
Scientists (especially biologists trained to think in exclusively evolutionist fashion) are poorly placed to draw the distinctions between belief based upon evidence and belief based upon worldview.
Evolution provides poor resources for explaining the huge problems of the origins of life and the origins of huge amounts of complex machinery which makes our best efforts at technology look very clumsy indeed. To pretend that we have demonstrated that unintelligent causes provide a full explanation for all this is dishonest."
When our object of inquiry shifts, our method of inquiry may have to shift as well. This goes some way towards explaining how people who are brilliant in their field may begin to talk nonsense when they cross over to another field of knowledge that is inappropiate to their familiar methods.
"True 'objectivity,' if this is the right word at all, depends on the appropriateness of the method of inquiry to the obect of inquiry. We do not prescribe the same methods in advance of all inquiries, on the assumption that one particular model of the act of knowledge is the only 'objective' one." (P. 188)
If we attempt to universalize the scientific method as the only appropriate method of inquiry for all objects of inquiry then many possible worlds of knowledge are eliminated as legitimate objects by definition. If the scientific method is the only method of inquiry we have then we have put strict limits on what we can even raise questions about. This is the "if my only tool is a hammer, then every problem is a nail" approach to simplifying the epistemological task.
Andrew Rowell, in his blog, ID in the United Kingdom, comments about the lack of awareness amongst many scientists of the role that a worldview plays in how we think and defend our positions. In his post, "The Darwinist Propaganda Carnival continues...," he writes:
"Thus scientists have crossed over the line between the pursuit of truth to the defence of a worldview (italics and bold type mine). The odd thing is that they do not seem to realise what they are doing. Most of them simply have no concept that there is such a thing as a “worldview” they are so immersed in their own view of the world that they don’t really believe that there can be anything else other than naturalism without it deserving to be in a padded clinic.
Scientists (especially biologists trained to think in exclusively evolutionist fashion) are poorly placed to draw the distinctions between belief based upon evidence and belief based upon worldview.
Evolution provides poor resources for explaining the huge problems of the origins of life and the origins of huge amounts of complex machinery which makes our best efforts at technology look very clumsy indeed. To pretend that we have demonstrated that unintelligent causes provide a full explanation for all this is dishonest."
When our object of inquiry shifts, our method of inquiry may have to shift as well. This goes some way towards explaining how people who are brilliant in their field may begin to talk nonsense when they cross over to another field of knowledge that is inappropiate to their familiar methods.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Pre-understanding
Pre-understanding is a technical term used in theology and philosophy of language to refer to what we unreflectively bring with us to the reading of a text. I am particularly interested in the role pre-understanding has to play in the interpretation of the Bible. The subject is both fascinating and important because it raises questions about our ability to understand the Bible (or any text). Thinking about this also helps towards an understanding of why we often find ourselves in conflict with one another about what the Bible says. We are surprised that what is clear to us is not clear to someone else. We want to know why we can't just read the Bible and let it say to us whatever it has to say and be done with it. One of the reasons is the problem of pre-understanding. We don't come to the Bible with a blank mind, waiting for the Bible to write across our consciousness whatever it pleases. We come to the Bible out of a particular culture, with a certain world view, with a set of things that we think we already know and understand, with certain bottom lines about what is reasonable and what is not, and so on. These things, that we come to the Bible with, affect the way we hear the Bible, aid in our interpretation, and direct the way we read the text and draw concepts and conclusions from it. This is unavoidable, the goal is not to come to the text with a blank mind but to make the effort to understand the mind that we are bringing to the text. There is no escaping the problems that are raised by this. It is logically impossible to come to the text with no understanding. I come with my pre-understanding and if I make an effort to be aware of what I am bringing to the text I may be prepared to make some changes in my world view where the text may seem to demand it. If this happens I can then have a refined pre-understanding which I will in turn bring back to the text the next time I read it. My world-view tells me how to interpret the text. I may wish to return to my naive position where I believed that the Bible was speaking to me and I was passively listening. Once I have begun to reflect on the problem of pre-understanding I can no longer be this naive. I am not a passive listener. I am shaping the meaning of the text as fast as the words are coming off the page and entering my mind.
As a simple starting place for reflecting on this consider the hermeneutical circle. The hermeutical circle says that I read a particular text and it helps me develop my global understanding of what the whole book is about. In Biblical terms we are talking about the relationship between exegesis and theology. I study a small passage of Scripture, seek to understand what it is saying and attempt to find a place for that in the development of my theology as a whole. The circle part comes in because, all the while, my theology is informing my interpretation of the particular passage that I am seeking to exegete. I don't reject my entire theological system in order to freshly interpret, without any pre-understanding, the text at hand. On the other hand, I don't want my theological system to be immune from challenge by a particular text. This presents a problem in reading that Bible that is best addressed by being aware of the problem. Creating a theology is a way of organizing everything I am learning from my regular reading of the text. This organizing begins to create a conceptual system that can become so complete and compelling that particular texts can no longer successfully challenge the sytem, they must be assimilated into it. My theological system becomes a pre-understanding that forces itself upon my reading of Scripture. Someone with a different theological pre-understanding becomes a conundrum to me when I see how he is reading a passage of Scripture that "obviously" means something quite different than he thinks it does.
The problem of pre-understanding is much bigger than this limited description of the hermeneutical circle. It takes in everything I think and believe about the world, in particular everything I unreflectively think and believe, everything that seems self-evident and obvious to me. Whatever I was when I came into the world I am definitely no tabula rasa by the time I begin to read the Bible. This is important because, if the Bible is the Word of God, it is most important that it be able to speak to me and to my world. If I am distorting its message every time I read it I had better at least be aware of it.
I believe that Herman Dooyeweerd has at least pointed the way to a corrective in his concept of a transcendental critique of culture.
As a simple starting place for reflecting on this consider the hermeneutical circle. The hermeutical circle says that I read a particular text and it helps me develop my global understanding of what the whole book is about. In Biblical terms we are talking about the relationship between exegesis and theology. I study a small passage of Scripture, seek to understand what it is saying and attempt to find a place for that in the development of my theology as a whole. The circle part comes in because, all the while, my theology is informing my interpretation of the particular passage that I am seeking to exegete. I don't reject my entire theological system in order to freshly interpret, without any pre-understanding, the text at hand. On the other hand, I don't want my theological system to be immune from challenge by a particular text. This presents a problem in reading that Bible that is best addressed by being aware of the problem. Creating a theology is a way of organizing everything I am learning from my regular reading of the text. This organizing begins to create a conceptual system that can become so complete and compelling that particular texts can no longer successfully challenge the sytem, they must be assimilated into it. My theological system becomes a pre-understanding that forces itself upon my reading of Scripture. Someone with a different theological pre-understanding becomes a conundrum to me when I see how he is reading a passage of Scripture that "obviously" means something quite different than he thinks it does.
The problem of pre-understanding is much bigger than this limited description of the hermeneutical circle. It takes in everything I think and believe about the world, in particular everything I unreflectively think and believe, everything that seems self-evident and obvious to me. Whatever I was when I came into the world I am definitely no tabula rasa by the time I begin to read the Bible. This is important because, if the Bible is the Word of God, it is most important that it be able to speak to me and to my world. If I am distorting its message every time I read it I had better at least be aware of it.
I believe that Herman Dooyeweerd has at least pointed the way to a corrective in his concept of a transcendental critique of culture.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
When two positions conflict
I follow a number of ongoing debates in theology, philosophy, and science. Many of these debates have raged for centuries and yet there are still two or more competing positions. Listening to some of the dialogue in the debates is discouraging at times, laughable at other times. Just some thoughts on what makes some positions intractable and some debates unfruitful:
1. All theories are underdetermined by the facts/evidence that support them (Quine). (see previous post)
2. Large systems that are internally consistent are naturally resistant to change. From the inside, everything makes perfect sense.
3. The higher the commitment to being right the more pressure there is to compromise the truth.
4. The more we have invested in a particular position, the more reluctant we are to abandon it, even in the face of increasing evidence against it.
5. Rhetorical tools can be used to make our argument appear stronger than it is and to make our opponents appear weaker than it is.
6. Isolation and insulation create a fortress mentality that results in an entire industry of defense. This undermines attention to being self-critical. In the pursuit of truth self-criticism is far more important than criticism of the dissenters.
7. Living in the fortress (box) makes it difficult to think outside the fortress (box). The more time I spend inside my "system" the less I can visualize any reasonable life outside of it.
8. Failure to appreciate how powerfully our presuppositions determine what we will admit as fact, how much weight we will give the facts we accept, and where the facts will be placed in our overall conceptualizing.
9. Laziness: Unwillingness to be rigorous in the development of our system and to be able to admit what is deduction and what is induction.
10. Frustration: We grow tired of the endless debate. We weary of the back and forth of argument and counterargument. We then either give up the dialogue or take shortcuts that undermine a fruitful process.
11. There are matters of community respect, financial reward, associations, and other disincentives that make it difficult for me to fully surrender to the pursuit of truth even if it means yielding some of my cherished beliefs.
12. Pride: I think that it is a shame to me to have held a position that I must now reject or radically alter, particularly if I have argued loudly against it in the past.
13. Semantics: The same or similar terms are being used in different ways and with different meanings in competing systems. This creates confusion and misunderstanding.
14. Lack of respect: Failure to value the opponent and to take him seriously as a human being.
15. Fear: I will defend irrationally whatever I am afraid of losing. This is particularly ture if I am unwilling to admit to myself what my non-negotiables are and why they are non-negotiable.
1. All theories are underdetermined by the facts/evidence that support them (Quine). (see previous post)
2. Large systems that are internally consistent are naturally resistant to change. From the inside, everything makes perfect sense.
3. The higher the commitment to being right the more pressure there is to compromise the truth.
4. The more we have invested in a particular position, the more reluctant we are to abandon it, even in the face of increasing evidence against it.
5. Rhetorical tools can be used to make our argument appear stronger than it is and to make our opponents appear weaker than it is.
6. Isolation and insulation create a fortress mentality that results in an entire industry of defense. This undermines attention to being self-critical. In the pursuit of truth self-criticism is far more important than criticism of the dissenters.
7. Living in the fortress (box) makes it difficult to think outside the fortress (box). The more time I spend inside my "system" the less I can visualize any reasonable life outside of it.
8. Failure to appreciate how powerfully our presuppositions determine what we will admit as fact, how much weight we will give the facts we accept, and where the facts will be placed in our overall conceptualizing.
9. Laziness: Unwillingness to be rigorous in the development of our system and to be able to admit what is deduction and what is induction.
10. Frustration: We grow tired of the endless debate. We weary of the back and forth of argument and counterargument. We then either give up the dialogue or take shortcuts that undermine a fruitful process.
11. There are matters of community respect, financial reward, associations, and other disincentives that make it difficult for me to fully surrender to the pursuit of truth even if it means yielding some of my cherished beliefs.
12. Pride: I think that it is a shame to me to have held a position that I must now reject or radically alter, particularly if I have argued loudly against it in the past.
13. Semantics: The same or similar terms are being used in different ways and with different meanings in competing systems. This creates confusion and misunderstanding.
14. Lack of respect: Failure to value the opponent and to take him seriously as a human being.
15. Fear: I will defend irrationally whatever I am afraid of losing. This is particularly ture if I am unwilling to admit to myself what my non-negotiables are and why they are non-negotiable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
