Today we looked at Bultmann’s demythologisation idea and its implications for hermeneutics.
A chapter from Miller and Grenz Introduction to Contemporary Theologies (Fortress Press, 1998) on Bultmann is here
Here are some ideas for the essay on hermeneutics (which is now due on the 29th April). The title is:
“Hermeneutics is the art of avoiding misunderstanding” (Schleiermacher). Discuss with reference to interpretation of the Bible.
Things to talk about:
The key question in hermeneutics is what makes a “good” interpretation, so the question is really asking you to talk about the best way of avoiding misunderstanding when interpreting a text (in this case, the Bible).
Inerrancy
For someone who believes in inerrancy, “God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind” (Chicago Statement). If God is truth, then what God says is truth. Therefore the Bible is true in all it says: “in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit” (Article 12) and that “Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses” (Article 11). Therefore, nothing can over-rule the Bible (”We deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” [Article 12]).
In this case, the Bible is supreme and is authoritative. The concept of “Scripture interpreting Scripture” is used, so that, in terms of hermeneutics, interpretations of the Bible are tested against other parts of the Bible. If you claim that one bit of the Bible says one thing, this is tested against what the Bible says elsewhere. If the Bible contradicts what you claim somewhere else then your interpretation must be wrong.
Other hermeneutics
Other ways of looking at the Bible emphasise the human dimensions a little more. They point to the human authors and suggest that all human beings have personal interests and agendas, and so it is important to try to look beneath these. Thus, interpreters look at genre, historical context and other things to try to make sense of the text.
Some argue that texts can mean different things to different people. Therefore there is no definitive “right” interpretation of any text - the text takes its meaning from the way the reader understands it. This is a very “post-modern” way of looking at interpretation; recognising that everthing looks different depending on where you look at it from. Some ways of looking at things might be more helpful than others, but one must at least recognise the influence the readers own position has on their interpretation.
Advice on writing the essay
The question is an invitation for you to reflect on the various ways of interpreting the Bible. Try to present the various options as fairly as you can, and offer a few strengths and weaknesses. You don’t have to leave your opinion out of it though - if one way of interpreting the Bible particularly appeals to you then explain why. What do you think makes it a better way of interpreting than the others?
Please use all the other information on the blog: look here. There is an article on early church hermeneutics which might give you some different ideas, and a few pages on the importance of genre.
If you have questions please email me and I’ll get back to you ASAP.
After Easter we’ll have a quick look at Bultmann and his concept of “demythologising”.
Good luck!