Hermeneutics [hur-muh-noo-tiks], broadly, is the art and science of text interpretation. Traditional hermeneutics is the study of the interpretation of written texts, especially texts in the areas of literature, religion and law. A type of traditional hermeneutic is biblical hermeneutics which concerns the study of the interpretation of the Bible.
With that in mind, I stumbled across this free book on Amazon today and began looking at some of its content. The title is “A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin” This post is not dealing with that issue, “original sin,” but if you would like to weigh in on it, please use the comment section. Instead I’d like to focus on this quote from the book:
“I’ve been very clear on this point here and elsewhere: I do not think it possible to begin with the Bible. We always begin with our own hermeneutical assumptions. Always. No exceptions. A human being cannot escape her/his own hermeneutical horizon. You are encased in it, just as you are encased in your own skin. There’s no escape.” ~ Tony Jones
I simply disagree. As I’ve stated before on multiple occasions, followers of Jesus, Disciples, His Sheep, are being transformed by the renewing of their minds. (Romans 12:2) It is a necessary result of being translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. (Colossians 1:13) You can not be encased in any hermeneutic.
Can you?
Missionary in the Andes Mountains Cloud Forest Region of Ecuador. My last name, "Labrador," is the word that's used for "Vine Worker" in the Spanish Bible, and it's OK with me. 
Eli on The Problem of a Missional Prophet
Peter on The Problem of a Missional Prophet
Abrown on The Problem of a Missional Prophet
Hermeneutical assumptions can change, as you said. I think that we will always have some type of hermeneutical assumptions. On the other hand, if we do not understand that we have assumptions and do not know what those assumptions are, then in that case we probably are “encased in our hermeneutical assumptions.”
-Alan
Alan,
My contention is that we can not remain in a state of ignorance regarding our own assumptions.
I would suggest, as I have before, that in the same way the Spirit intercedes for us when we don’t know what to pray (Romans 8:26), He also helps us interpret the scriptures. Better yet he brings us to an understanding which echoes His own intention as originally given in scripture.
Miguel,
I agree completely, assuming that we recognize that we have hermeneutical assumptions in the first place. If we assume that we are interpreting things (Scripture, or anything for that matter) without assumptions, then those assumptions are likely to act as blinders keeping us from understanding how the Spirit is bringing us to understanding.
-Alan
to begin, remain, and end with/in Christ: most excellent hermeneutic. Any less of Him and other designs (from men or angels) will need be employed.
“A ‘man of his own soul’ is not receiving things of the Spirit of God, for he will regard them as moronic [stupid, ridiculous, absurd, silly, implausible...]. He [the soulish man] is not able to know [how] to spiritually examine/discern.”
– I Corinthians 2:14
Marshall,
This concept of spiritual things being spiritually discerned is crucial to this discussion. At the same time, the Lord puts tools at our disposal and the teachings of great truths once uncovered by previous generations.
Generations of men do not uncover “great truths”. How quick we are to flatter humanity!? But it is God who is the Revealer! Tools may help exercise the mind or the body, while they cannot provide the Source; they cannot deliver The Truth.
Of course God is the revealer. I did not mean to insinuate otherwise. But it would be quite arrogant to say that this current generation is better at receiving and relaying God’s revelation then previous ones. We can stand on the shoulders of other generations’s faithful.
The divine origin, in my thinking anyway, always stays intact.
Many have done better than we. Yet, even Jesus is saying, “You shall see greater things than these”. (It being understood, how a father longs for his children to excel.)
Those before us were unable to reduce the revelation of Christ to letters, though they did leave behind a few notes and writings — some of which we still have by way of slightly tattered copies. This was not a failure on their part… The revelation of Christ cannot be reduced or compressed to the letter. Even John’s writing, while presenting images and description as if hints, cannot contain Him! (We likewise remain in awe.)
The RCC and the Protestant may see themselves standing on the shoulders of other generations, while we would be found at the feet of Christ WITH those earlier generations as Living Stones He is assembling. Even as Christ is saying, “many that are first shall be last; and the last first.”
Herman who?
You say it is “the study of the interpretation of written texts”. What is obviously implied here, but seldom mentioned, is that it is actually the study of SOMEONE ELSE’S interpretation of the written texts. Which kinda defeats the purpose when it comes to the Bible leading us into relationship with God. Maybe a study worth doing while reading the Constitution of the United States of America, but, in my opinion, it is all but useless when studying the Bible–which God is perfectly capable of interpreting Himself.
Why study someone else’s interpretation of a book when you know the author?
Tony Jones obviously hasn’t a clue when it comes to anything spiritual, and has no business writing books that people quote from when it comes to having a relationship with God. To become “encased” in a Biblical hermanwhatchmacallit is to have zero relationship with God, and waaaaaayyyyy too much trust in other people (so called “theologians”).
Case-In-Point (just for giggles and grins). When I was a teenager (and maybe even early 20′s), I was convinced that God the Father created Jesus in Mary’s womb around year 0 or so. I never really thought to look into it.
That is, until I read the first chapter of John while allowing the Holy Spirit to interpret the meaning of the chapter to me. To my surprise, I was wrong, and guess what? I changed my mind. I learned. I grew spiritually. When I turned off my own assumptions and started with the Bible, I ran head-first into the truth concerning that particular subject. I have learned many things over the years, and changed my mind many times concerning the things of the Lord, and continue to today.
I think sometimes that personal stories give a much clearer view of things than theological arguments do. I think that’s because it was designed by God to be that way. He didn’t create us figure Him out. He created us to have a relationship with Him, and with each other, not to get together and play hermantheodoctrinalogical mind games with each other.
David,
It’s not necessarily the interpretation of someone else’s interpretation. There were many scribes, etc., that were to copy meticulously and not interpret as they went along.
But, I think you’re right. Without relationship we can’t understand scripture. “Abide in Me, and my words in you.”
I meant that the study of Hermeneutics, and theology, and the commentaries and such, were the study of someone else’s interpretation of Scripture. I agree God provided scribes down throughout the centuries to copy Biblical texts accurately. He is perfectly capable of preserving His written Word, and has done just that.
By the way, if you’re reading an English translation, any other translation, or even a Hebrew or Greek edition (which are all edited), you’re reading someone else’s interpretation – someone with certain hermeneutical presuppositions and biases.
-Alan
Alan, other than inserting punctuation, I’m not aware of other “hermenutical presuppositions and biases” in the existing Greek editions. As to the punctuation, anyone reading those editions would be well aware that there was no punctuation in the original text, so that’s very up front and clear as to what is happening and no one seriously would presume that was part of the original text.
Rather, there are different Greek editions with very minor differences based on which source documents they rely upon. But those which go back to the earliest known Greek texts (speaking here of the NT) have no real substantive differences. If I’m wrong, and things have changed since I taught this years ago as a college professor, let me know – with an example of some difference which matters.
That’s okay Alan, God speaks English.
Jim,
“No real substantive differences”… There are differences in the various manuscripts. Each NT Greek editor has a different manner of choosing which reading is the “correct” reading. Are the differences substantive? It depends on who you ask. I’ve never seen a variant that would make me question what I believe, but there are some variants that differ from what I believe.
-Alan
So, was God incapable of preserving the Scriptures for us throughout the centuries in whatever language we choose to read it? And if so, is He also incapable of interpreting His own Scriptures to each reader, And revealing the flaws to them? Why must we study the heumaflotchy, compare notes and come to a consensus as to what is right or wrong? Why not just ask the one who wrote the book? Isn’t that kinda the point of the book in the first place–to bring us into relationship with Him?
David,
It’s not about “studying the heumaflotchy.” When you read Scripture (or anything, for that matter), you use “hermeneutics,” which is simply a method of interpretation. If you say, “Well, God tells me exactly what it means,” that’s a method of interpretation – hermeneutics.
-Alan
David,
One more thing… if you say, “The one who wrote the book told me it means X,” but the person beside you says, “The one who wrote the book told me it means Y,” (such that X is not Y) are you going to automatically assume the person beside you is wrong? Is it possible that you misunderstood what “the one who wrote the book” told you? If that’s even possible, then how will you decide whether you are right, or the person beside you is right, or neither of you is right?
-Alan
Decide for what reason? Creating theology, writing extra-Biblical doctrine, or just living life? What the Bible is clear on, it’s clear on. However, most extra-Biblical doctrine is written to “clarify” things that the Bible (in my view) intentionally left open so that the Lord could speak to each person what that person needs for their life.
Concerning alcohol for example. God may tell a hard-core alcoholic who can’t handle any without binging to never touch a drop of the stuff while telling someone who could care less about alcohol to drink wine for health reasons, or to not offend in cultural differences, or in communion with a friend.
X’s and Y’s may make good arguments, but they break down in actual practice when real examples are used. You see, you left out a fourth option in your last sentence. I’m perfectly comfortable (in situations such as the one in my example) with both being “right”. Because when it comes down to it, we all have it a little “wrong”, but God is always right–even when He tells A (X) and B (Y).
David,
By the way, your answer demonstrates both (part of) your hermeneutical methods and (some of) your hermeneutical assumptions.
-Alan
David,
Well, except I specifically said that X is not Y… and suppose X and Y have to do with the character and nature of God. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Which do you live according to? What if God reveals to the other person (through Scripture) something that he wants you to know? In actual practice, these are very important (not theoretical) questions.
By the way, I’m not interested in creating extra-Biblical doctrine, and I’m not interesting in any kind of doctrine just for the sake of doctrine.
-Alan
Alan X= you can drink, Y=you can’t drink. Opposites, but both true. Again, what example would you use? If I said God is judgmental and jealous, and you said He was loving and gracious, would we not both be right? The Scripture is very clear on these things. These are the things which do not change. How do I choose which is right? I choose God, not the other person. I choose what He says over what they say.
As far as doctrine is concerned, I believe the Bible is to BE our doctrine, not just a reference tool FOR our favorite doctrine, so when I say extra-Biblical doctrine, I am referring to most institutionalized church doctrine.
So, since I’ve answered most of your questions quite directly, how ’bout answering some of mine? Not necessarily tonight, I know it’s getting late, but:
Did God preserve His Scriptures over the millennia?
If not, can’t He fix any discrepancies to each reader without them comparing notes, and coming up with extra-Biblical doctrine to hold everyone accountable to absolutely?
Is He any less God if He tells one to drink, and one to not drink? (this is just an example, I don’t drink myself)
Can the Bible, as it’s written, BE our doctrine, or do we need further human clarification? In other words, why do we need to always figure out who is right, and who is wrong? Wouldn’t it be more wrong to hold both people in my alcohol example to the same standard? Do you tell both to drink, or not drink? Do you allow the offence, or the binge? Why can’t BOTH be right about what God told them to do in this situation even though He told them opposite things?
David,
The exact nature of X and Y are not important to my point. You proved my point with both of your responses. You partially revealed that you have hermeneutical presuppositions and that you use hermeneutical methods.
Like I said earlier, I’m not interested in using the Bible to do anything. I’m interesting in understand what God is revealing to us through Scripture. That required hermeneutics (methods of interpretation)… as you demonstrated.
-Alan
Didn’t figure you had answers for these. Most people that only “hear from God” through Scripture don’t.
David,
When did I say that I only hear from God through Scripture?
-Alan
By the way, that statement is another great example of a hermeneutical presupposition.
-Alan
I think the first part is a bit true, and the second part not. We do all have hermeneutical assumptions-some of them we know and understand, some we don’t. We are not necessarily encased in them, though at certain points we may be.
However, the important point, I think, is that the second part of the statement is NOT true at all. There are ways of escape. If we go to the Bible with an attitude of humility, then we can learn from others; and if not, God can STILL get through to us-it will just take longer.
Another point is that we are all ‘theologians’ in the sense that we interpret what we read. We cannot help but interpret it; and it is almost impossible to not affect anyone else’s understanding.
Alan, my concern with your initial statement is that you imply that the leading Greek editions have been altered from their source Greek manuscripts. I don’t think you meant to say that.
Regardless…
Although it is true that there are different approaches on which ancient source manuscripts are more trustworthy and thus should be used in putting together modern Greek editions, that is a matter of textual criticism and not hermeneutics.
Furthermore, there is not a dime’s worth of substantive differences between the leading Greek editions – even where they have differed over which source Greek manuscripts they prefer. The only real difference is that some ancient manuscripts don’t have some passages (for example, the woman taken in adultery and the end of Mark) – but I have NEVER encountered anyone who’s doctrine has in any way been affected by that. If you know of a case, let us know!
Those possibly inserted passages provide nothing contrary to the rest of scripture.
Otherwise, we generally are left with a miniscule number of very minor transcription errors that are fairly easy to spot based on the totality of the manuscripts, and there is nearly universal agreement on those. Again, they don’t effect anyone’s doctrines.
If you in fact know of any substantive differences – for example, a real doctrinal disagreement – arising from any of the Greek editions, I really want to know. Otherwise, I fear you are leaving people with a very, very inaccurate impression that is not based in actual scholarship or real life interpretation.
I taught New Testament canon development a number of years ago at the grad and undergrad level, and unless there has been some radical new development, I think I am on solid ground here. If not, then I think actual examples to back up your initial statements are in order.
I’m not trying to bust your chops here, but there are too many people who take such general statements and twist things beyond what is actually true. I don’t think that was your intent, but neither do I think your claims are helpful without real-world substantiation.
Jim,
Textual criticism is a form of hermeneutic (interpretation). As much as textual critics try to create a set of steps that work without presuppositions, they haven’t reached that point yet. For big examples, look at differences between Greek editions based on the Majority Text and editions based on a critical edition such as the NA28. (And, that’s not counting variations with each of those editions.) Again, I’m not saying these are huge (theological) differences (although there are a few theological differences).
Here are a couple of real-world examples: Luke 23:34, Romans 8:1, 1 Corinthians 6:20. Huge theological differences? No. Differences? Yes. And, how do we choose between them? Well, that’s often a hermeneutical question.
-Alan
Alan, all human activity is rooted in presuppositions – that is unavoidable given that we are finite and lack in ourselves the ability to have perfect, comprehensive knowledge. We therefore must presuppose a starting point. To critically say something is rooted in presuppositions, therefore, is making a point with no meaningful distinction.
The issue is whether those presuppositions are internally and externally consistent. Textual criticism passes that test. It is NOT a matter of theological hermeneutics – i.e., altering the text based on some theological presupposition, as you imply has happened with the New Testament. Rather, textual criticism relies on presuppositions that are independent of one’s theology, and would apply whether the text is the Bible or some secular book.
So manuscripts A, B and C use a particular verb tense, but D does not, in a certain verse. D post dates A, B and C by 200 years, and A, B and C all come from widely separate regions, while D comes from the same transcription lineage going back to A.
Textual criticism would then conclude, based on some logical presuppositions (which in turn presuppose that God created us with the ability to reason, which presupposes …. ad nauseum), that the verb tense in A, B and C likely was part of the original manuscript.
To imply that this means someone altered the best available manuscripts because of some theological hermeneutic or biased presupposition is very, very misleading. Rather, it means that we likely, today, have the most accurate and trustworthy texts available since the close of the first century.
All I’m suggesting is that you be more precise, and careful, in what you say. You are a respected voice, and that carries some added responsibilities.
Jim,
I never intended to imply that textual criticism alters the text. (I don’t see where I implied that, but I trust you that I did.) The goal of textual criticism is to find the best (hopefully the “original”) reading from among the variants from different Greek manuscripts. Choosing from among those variants is not an exact science. In fact, even most textual critics admit that their work is a mixture of art and science. Thus, there is interpretation involved, which is hermeneutics. And, presupposition is part of that process.
There is certainly perfect knowledge, and that is the root of what we are seeking. If I did not believe that there was a Truth, then I would not care about this conversation at all. The problem is that many people today (including Christians) think that they have that perfect knowledge, based on their interpretive presuppositions. My only point in beginning this conversation (and answering Miguel’s questions) is that if we do not understand that we have presuppositions when studying Scripture (or anything else), then those presuppositions will act as blinders, keeping us from changing our understanding – even and especially when that understanding is wrong (i.e., not aligned with God’s truth).
-Alan
Thanks, Alan. On that, we are in prefect harmony.
Whatever differences there are between greek texts, even be they minor, its hard to deny variation amongst english translations. KJV clearly has a doctrinal bent when it comes to certain subjects… eg the afterlife. I wouldn’t consider that minor.
That said knowledge of differences shouldnt undermine faith in christ. I would say our english translations are pretty good considering what god had to work with. I also see the wisdom of god behind the whole thing as christ/his word was first, then the words that were written down by men.
Anyways I disagree as well. There is an escape and we are all being transformed in various ways and means. Unfortunately though he is probably closer to the truth of the matter than those that minimize the impact of preconceived ideas, prejudice, religious training, world view and culture on biblical interpretation.
Fascinating conversation. The “renewing of the mind” is an ongoing affair and will continue until we die, which is confirmed by defining a “disciple” according to its original meaning, namely a “learner” and not a person who has attained to some level of Christian commitment. This lifelong “learnership” is not an accomplishment or badge of distinction, but rather a painful and humbling “letting go” of personal convictions, opinions, paradigms and the like. It necessitates a continuous “unlearning” and is an ongoing migration from presuppositions of the self to the mind of Christ. I think it is imperative to acknowledge that I bring a set of presuppositions with me whenever I sit down to read the Bible, and to question continuously whether I am busy with exegesis or eisegesis.
You may have something else in mind with your reference to being encased in a hermeneutic, but I don’t think you can separate the two. The way in which we interpret the Bible is oftentimes a reflection of where we are at in our lives, which is why great Christian thinkers often issue retractions later on in life.
Bottom line, the study of hermeneutical assumptions is not a study of Scripture or the heart of God, it’s a study of human thought patterns plain and simple. It’s not theology, it’s psychology.
And it’s as pointless as psychology.
Charlie Brown: ” I thought I saw a doggie and a horsie, but I’m going to be quiet.” (On looking up a cloud patterns with Lucy and Linus who see elaborate artistic and philosophic truths in the patterns).
I though I had sort-of covered this in my recent eBook: Revisiting Scripture: Assumptions but this extensive exchange shows me it is alive and well. I understand Biblical Hermeneutics is a formal method for interpreting Scripture, but sadly, there are multiple ways people choose to interpret passages, and until you recognize that, you will be amazed at how two people can approach the same passage and ‘see’ radically different meanings.
Miguel, I think people are encased in their assumptions (if you don’t like the word hermeneutics) because they can’t recognize them. I’m firmly hoping that many will change their assumptions by God’s grace as they examine them and see where they acquired them.
PS. I hope SOMEONE will eventually post a review on my eBook on just this topic…numerous people have downloaded it, yet, as one comment page says, “It’s awfully quiet around here.”
Tom – I would love to read your book and post a review – especially if you’ve addressed this issue. it’s no longer free, is it?
I do think that Mr. Jones is right that we always bring a certain set of assumptions with us to the text. Whether we call them hermenuetical assumptions or a priori assumptions seem irrelevant to me. They are present. The point you make Miguel is that because of the Spirit our mind can be transformed and we can leave behind the assumptions we once had. However, I would argue this does not negate Tony’s statement. We still would bring assumptions with us. They would, however, be transformed assumptions and renewed by the Spirit just as our mind itself has been renewed and transformed. But they are still present, they are just now of God rather than of the world.
I’d wager it’s more difficult to escape our cultural presuppositions as we approach the bible than many would like to admit. It is a serious issue, and it demands we have a humble and learners attitude, and that we listen to others who approach the bible from different presuppositions. That said, to believe that we are bound or encased by our presuppositions and can’t break out of them is to suggest that humans are fully programmed and all behavior is automatic – B.F. Skinner. True communication is therefore impossible. Unfortunately, that presupposition fails the test of experience. When someone yells “Fire” in a theater, we all manage to overcome our presuppositions and head for the exits. We humans do communicate with one another in recognizable and measurable ways, both verbally and in writing. It is not impossible to understand the intended meaning of a biblical passage. True knowledge is possible. But it demands a humility and openness to learn from others.
I find the concept of the hermeneutical spiral helpful. I bring my presuppositions to a text, but allow my conclusions to be challenged by others, which reshaped my understanding. That reshaping continues with further inputs.
Mark Twain?? once famously said something like this: “It’s not the parts of the bible I don’t understand that bother me, it’s the parts I do understand.” I suspect that some of our objections to understanding the bible have their roots in our resistance to it’s moral demands, rather than mere intellectual dissent. It doesn’t take a college degree in NT Greek and hermeneutics to understand what Jesus meant about loving our enemies or forgiving others. It’s pretty evident in nearly every culture. It’s the application of the text we have trouble with!