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.