Hermeneutics, the study of interpretation theory, may be limited to literary texts or widened to embrace verbal and non-verbal forms of communication. Biblical hermeneutics is sometimes referred to as a science because it involves using a prescribed set of rules for the interpretation of biblical texts. However, hermeneutics is also an art, since understanding the meaning of the text cannot be achieved by merely applying such rules in a mechanistic manner.
To what extent is it legitimate to call biblical hermeneutics a science? Having prescribed rules may be a wise and sound way of providing direction for interpretation, but does that make it scientific? One of the problems with treating any kind of hermeneutics as scientific is pointed out by Peter Rickman (“Is Psychology Science?” in Philosophy Now [July/August 2009] 7). In physical sciences the focus of understanding is classes, whereas hermeneutics is concerned with individuals. As Rickman points out, in physics or chemistry “the example investigated is not of intrinsic interest. Once the experiment is finished, the contents of the test tube may be poured down the sink: they’re only useful inasmuch as they help form general laws.” By contrast, Rickman observes that the primary focus in hermeneutics is the individual poem, not poetry in general or a particular person, not the group to which he belongs.
Rickman observes that while physical objects are substantially explained in terms of the class to which they belong, it becomes more precarious to do this when considering the individual focus in hermeneutics. Clearly to explain an individual human being as being a woman or a teenager is inadequate and often rightly condemned as stereotyping. Rather, in hermeneutics the individual word or text has to be understood within the context in which it occurs.
Rickman is making an excellent point here. I happen to be lecturing on the book of Daniel at present. One annoying aspect of biblical scholarship is that the book of Daniel is constantly being subjected to unreasonable stereotyping. Studies in so-called inter-testamental apocalypses written between 250 BCE and 150 AD have led to a highly unsatisfactory approach to the individual text of Daniel which treats it as conforming to this class of apocalypses. However, when the book of Daniel is considered within its most important context, namely that of the biblical canon, with which it quite clearly aligns itself, it soon becomes apparent that there is something seriously wrong with the current state of studies into apocalyptic literature. This is because whatever commonalities the book of Daniel may share with inter-testamental apocalypses, and there are some, there are massive and clashing points of dissonance. It is frustrating and highly annoying to see scholars stereotyping Daniel, gliding over its distinctive individuality and failing to come to terms with its meaning precisely because they fail to place it in its context.
It is time for biblical scholars to stop “playing” at science, to stop trying to impose an improper “scientific” model on biblical hermeneutics and to start applying the prescribed, but non-scientific rules of hermeneutics with the skill of an artist.
Posted September 2, 2009
Upon clicking 'Buy now' you will be redirected to paypal.com where you can securely and quickly complete your purchase with a few clicks.
Immediately after payment at PayPal you will be redirected to a download page which
provides you instant access to your purchase.
