Saturday, May 17, 2008

Theological Hermeneutics Versus Inductive Bible Study

I was reflecting this morning on the difference between inductive Bible study and the latest craze, "theological hermeutics." I'm not at the office to grab some books off the shelf but I associate this movement with names like Kevin Vanhoozer, Joel Green, and Anthony Thiselton, each in their own way.

Vanhoozer has put together The Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Green has started the Two Horizons commentary series with its launching volume, Between Two Horizons, and his own book, Seized by Truth. I am sure those who are further ensconched in this literature could add other books. Mike, if you're out there, I'll go ahead and mention Jeannine Brown's, Scripture as Communication.

I had three thoughts today on the contrast between the theological approach to interpretation and the inductive approach I learned at Asbury Seminary and that is the stuff of the historical critical method. Here they are in brief:

1. Its fundamental method is deductive rather than inductive.
A deductive method primarily proceeds from certain assumptions and then plays out the likely consequences of those assumptions. Certainly theological hermeneutics interacts significantly with the vast data of the biblical text. Yes, certainly there is no "inductive" method to be found that does not proceed from certain assumptions as well--all thinking does.

However, the assumptions from which theological hermeneutics often proceeds are quite large and debatable from an evidentiary perspective (this of course fits the postmodern Zeitgeist and fits with the theological work of James Smith and Nicholas Wolterstorff).

2. It does not aim at the most likely interpretation given the evidence but on the interpretation that best fits with its presuppositions.
In other words, theological hermeneutics does not operate in the same way that ordinary truth pursuit does. It does not gather evidence and generate hypotheses to explain that evidence, hypotheses that are then evaluated on their simplicity, clarity, and ability to account for as much data as possible.

Its logical process is more akin to prejudice, bias, and any -centrism whose primary operating principle derives from unexamined and unprovable assumptions rather than from the most probable reading of the data.

I have given concrete examples of this logic before. From an inductive standpoint, one would not infer that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in its current form. Genesis never mentions him. He is always discussed in the third person rather than the first person throughout the Pentateuch, including the narration of his death. No one following an inductive method would infer that Moses was its author.

However, the traditional and often hotly affirmed Mosaic authorship functions on the basis of theological assumptions derived from a certain reading of the New Testament.

3. Theological hermeneutics is a species of reader response criticism.
The final implication of what we have observed above is that theological hermeneutics is in fact a species of reader response criticism. In the case of Vanhoozer, this is ironic, since he himself puts great impetus on the meaning of Scripture in its original speech-act. He rejects drastically the validity of reader response approaches.

I do not, nor do I think does Joel Green. However, I would strongly affirm that inductive study remains valid and a significant element in the theological process. Most of all, I contend that theological hermeneutics should not be confused with inductive Bible study. Further, while theological hermeneutics may be a more appropriate Christian reading of the biblical texts, we should be clear that it is not the reading likely to tell you what Paul or any biblical author was actually trying to say.

Vanhoozer's method is confused when it tries to equate the meaning of the original speech act of any portion of Scripture with some divine speech act in the whole of Scripture. The first is the stuff of inductive Bible study and the original meaning. The second is valid but it is a reader response approach to the biblical text. Vanhoozer confuses the two.

6 comments:

Bryan L said...

Thanks for this post. I recently read Reading Scripture with the Church by AKMA, Fowl, Vanhoozer and Watson and came away scratching my head asking myself whether this really is the way forward. I was confused because I wonder how biblical criticism and theological hermeneutics could fit together and whether the latter was purely a tool for the church used to ignore whatever biblical criticism was saying, like it was sort of taking the Bible back. Are you going to do any more posts on this subject? I've been reading more about hermeneutics lately and I'm trying to find some guidance in the fog since I'm starting to think that all the major issues of how the Bible applies to the church today are decided through hermeneutics. I'm just not sure how and which method is the best or the most valid. After reading about theological hermeneutics I'm not sure that's the basket I want to put my eggs in.

Thanks,
Bryan L

Ken Schenck said...

Bryan, I have so many interests that I am both likely to blog on this regularly and yet not do anything really significant with it. This is my greatest weakness. I never lack for ideas for books or articles... BUT I am so over the map in my interest (and over obligated in my entanglements) that I produce little next to the big hitters.

Now if anyone out there wants to set me up with an office and a nice stipend to write, I'm all ears.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for an interesting post. I have linked to it at my blog (www.bibleexposition.net).

That being said, while I think at a general level there is some validity to three distinctions, I wonder whether it is as either/or as you seem to imply. What I mean is this. Theological interpretation presumably begins with inductive interpretation at some point. In other words, the theological presuppositions which might be brought to bear on a given text were not created out of nothing, but probably created out of an inductive reading of the text. I see both theological and inductive readings to be part of the hermeneutical spiral in which inductive readings challenge theological presuppositions and theological presuppositions are brought to bear on inductive readings.

Mike Cline said...

I would agree that this "theological hermeneutics" that you lay out does dabble in the world of reader-response, but only in the kind that I can swallow. It's not the evil, i.e. Stanley Fish, flavor. There is definitely an emphasis on the reader's appropriation of the text, but the reader is not free to solely determine meaning in speech-act theory. Appropriation may be the key word.

Two more thoughts:
(1) Where would you put the realm of "critical-realism" in this discussion? I guess I've often put it in the same category as speech-act discussion, which then would also place critical realism in the reader-response category according to you. Just wondering...

(2) Though I am sure Dr. Brown appreciate the link love, you don't have to mention her every time you talk about hermeneutics. I'm an avid reader and am not going anywhere. :)

Ken Schenck said...

Thanks for the link, Charles!

Mike, I should clarify. I don't put the speech act approach per se in the reader response category. Insofar as Vanhoozer and others stick to the speech act approach in relation to individual texts, I see them following the historical critical method in which critical realism is the best we can hope for.

The problem is 1) when interpreters begin to smuggle in theological presuppositions that the text itself does not inductively call for and 2) when V and others begin to speak of the biblical text as a whole as God's speech act.

This latter approach immediately violates all the texts involved in terms of their original speech acts and transforms them into something quite different. The former moves the interpretation in the direction of ideological criticism.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Does understanding the text as a whole as God's "speech act", then could all religious texts be understood this way? If so, then isn't revelation culturally specific? Even though the texts and moral models are culturally specific, aren't there "universals" that are represented within the "ideals" of the moral models? And how does understanding the text "as a whole" change the text from something different from its original intent? Isn't changing the "text" from its original intent what was done in the NT in regards to certain OT texts? Didn't the disciples use Scripture to underline a point ignoring the particular historical context of the Scripture used...using it in a "new way"? It seems that the way in which one understands the "right way" to understand Scripture is indicative of how someone understands inspiration....
In over my head, I guess....