Transcript Reality and Interpretation of Scripture:

Prolegomena:
Reality,
Language, &
Interpretation
Caravaggio,
“Doubting Thomas"
1
Respond to the following quote:
“Happy is the man who can approach his Bible as
free from predilections, prejudices, and biases as it is
possible to do, humanly speaking.”
~ Dr. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation,
85.
2
Reality at its most basic level is that which exists or
“that which is.” Therefore, reality is connected to
the following order of disciplines:
Hermeneutics: How do we understand what is communicated.
Linguistics is how do we communicate what we know.
Epistemology is how do we know that which is.
Metaphysics is what is that which is (the nature of existence).
Reality is that which exists (or is).
3
Why do people disagree about what the
Bible says? Some say it is because, in part,
our preconditions. Each of us interpret
reality though “lenses”, “prisms”, or
preconditions each of us possess. Some
even go so far to say we “construct reality.”
These preconditions include the following:
Presuppositions: Fixed biases that do not
change unless placed under extreme
duress.
Preunderstandings: Moldable influences
that come and go (authority; situatedness).
Noetic effects of sin: The effects of sin
upon the mind.
4
Direct Realism:
We are able to
compare and
correlate our theories
with independent
reality.
WORLDVIEWS & REALITY
Agnosticism
isolates the head
from reality; we
can only know
appearances, not
reality.
Relativism
does not use
the head
Pluralism affirms
“all” truth (s); they
nod affirmatively
to every claim of
reality.
Skepticism
shakes the
head in
disbelief &
suspicion.
Postmodernism
ignores the truth;
they turn their
head away from
reality to
“construct” their
own reality.
5
Respond to the following
statements:
“I would like to know the truth about that?”
“How can we judge that something is true or false?”
1.
2.
3.
4.
Is it even possible to know?
Can you only marginally know?
Can you objectively know?
Is experimentation the only way to know the truth about
something?
5. If you are not able to objectively know, then are you still able to
accurately know?
6. If you are not able to objectively know, then are you left with
really not knowing at all?
7. If you can’t know, then are you really a nihilist?
6
“I would like to know the truth about
that?” Consider the following:
The phrase “to know the truth” is redundant
because “to know” is to have in one’s mind the
truth about the object one is trying to know.
“False knowledge” is impossible because it
wouldn’t be knowledge if it were false.
“True knowledge” is redundant because to know
is to have the truth.
7
Skepticism:
Skepticism is an attitude
take toward the problem of
the pursuit of truth:
There is nothing true or false;
Everything is equally true and
false;
We are unable to know what is
true or what is false;
We simple don’t have the
knowledge or possess the truth.
8
Against Skepticism:
“Can a person lie deliberately
without at least thinking that
he knows something to be
true, that he has some grasp
of the truth? Could he tell a
lie if he didn’t think that he
had a grasp of the truth?”
~ Mortimer J. Adler, How to
Think about the Great Ideas, pg.
3.
9
Against Skepticism:
“You all have a pretty clear notion of what
truth is. Let me show you that do by
reminding you of the distinction between
truth telling and lying. Everyone of us has
told a lie. Everyone of us knows how to lie
And everyone of us knows the difference
between lying and telling the truth. We
know that if we say something is the case
when it is not, or that it is no the case
when it is, we are lying…. And you can see
then that lying is a lack of correspondence
between what one thinks and what one
says.” ~Ibid., 3.
10
Adler later states:
“Remember now in telling the truth, in order to tell the
truth, we must achieve a correspondence between our
words, our speech, and our thought. We speak
truthfully when our speech corresponds or conforms to
what we think. And there is truth in communication
between persons when, in using words, their two minds
correspond with one another. The ideas in one
person’s mind correspond to the ideas in the other.”
Ibid., 4.
11
Consider Freud’s Response to
Skepticism: For Freud skepticism is
Sigmund Freud
(1856-1939)
intellectual anarchy:
“If it were really a matter of
indifference what we believe, then we
might just as well build our bridges of
cardboard as of stone, or inject a tenth
of a gram of morphine into a patient
instead of a hundredth, or take teargas
as a narcotic instead of ether; but the
intellectual anarchists themselves
[skeptic] would strongly repudiate any
such practical implications of their 12
Consider Relativism:
Some things that are true for
you are false for me, and what
may be true for me is false for
you, and what was once true
some other period of history or
in some other culture is no
longer true.
Alleged to be stated by
Protagoras, “Man is the
measure of all things: things
which are, that they are, and of
things which are not, that they
are not.” ~ Plato's Theaetetus,
section 152a.
Protagoras, a Pre-Socratic
Philosopher (490BC-420 BC) 13
Against Relativism:
Truth is objective (not subjective and relative);
Truth is absolute (not conditional);
Truth is immutable (not changeable);
Truth is universally transcendent (always a everywhere
the same for all people no matter time, space, gender,
sexuality, worldview, religion, or political position).
14
Pragmatism:
Truth consist in those ideas or
thought which bear practical fruit in
action;
Truth is that which consists in the
things which work;
Truth is what works in our thinking;
An idea’s working successfully is a
sign of its truth;
Emphasis on action and practical
results as the measure of truth.
William James
(1842-1910)
John Dewey
(1859-1952)
15
Consider the following:
Is there a direct or even an indirect way of
asking reality questions to find out whether what
you think agrees with what reality thinks?
Well you can ask reality the question, but reality
doesn’t speak back. So, the problem is telling
whether what I think is true is really true?
16
Let’s consider five models of reality as it relates to
biblical interpretation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Representational Model.
Functional Agnostic Model.
Postconservative Relational Model.
Direct Realist Model.
Direct Realist Moderate Thomist
Model.
17
REPRESENTATIONAL GAP: The thing in mind is a copy of
Comparison
thing as it is in itself.
The Object itself
The Idea
G
Sense
Perception
The gap is
what is
between us &
reality; we are
trapped by our
ideas,
concepts, &
images.
A
P
Indubitability: When our
own ideas are absolutely
clear & distinct, free from
all contradiction, then we
are certain we possess the
truth.
The idea of the Bible is the representation. There is no way to determine accuracy of the idea since the Bible is outside the mind
18be
and the idea is in the mind. The bible is always “out there” and our representation is always “in here.” The two can never
brought along side another for the purpose of the comparison for there a gap between the interpreter and reality.
Consider the following statements by Rene Descartes:
“Whatever
I have up till now accepted as most true I
have acquired either from the senses or through the
senses. But from time to time I have found that the
senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust
completely those who have deceived us even once”
(VII.18). ~ Descartes.
19
Consider the following statements by Rene Descartes:
“So serious are the doubts into which I have been
thrown as a result of yesterday’s meditation that I
can neither put them out of my mind nor see any
way of resolving them. It feels as if have fallen
unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles
me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom
nor swim up to the top. Nevertheless… I will
proceed… until I recognize something certain, or, if
nothing else, until I at least recognize for certain that
there is no certainty. Archimedes used to demand
just one firm and immovable point in order to shift
the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if
I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that
is certain and unshakeable (VII:24).”
20
Descartes' Belief -Set:
Believe only that which
can’t be doubted
I think, therefore I exist.
Beliefs which can be
doubted
A good God exists
I think, i.e., I doubt, will, imagine,
perceive, etc.
All propositions of …
Intellect priority the true nature of
bodies, if they exist is perceived by the
intellect, not the senses.
I have a body
Mind priority: (knowledge of the mind is
more easily acquired than knowledge of
the bodies)
Sensor Experience
I have a vapory soul
Physics
Astronomy
God exists
Medicine
God is not a deceiver
Arithmetic
Clearly & distinctly perceived
propositions are true, etc.
Geometry
21
FUNCTIONAL AGNOSTIC GAP: We inherently contaminate reality because of
our human limitations; all interpretations are provisional though legitimate
meaning and doctrinal truths are held with absolute conviction.
Prejudice
Approximation
Reality & Revelation
G
Holistic
(community)
Perception
The gap is what is
between us &
reality; we are
trapped by our
perspectivalism.
A
P
We can only approximate
towards biblical meaning by
means of qualitative dialogue
within the community of God.
There is no way to truly discover the Author/author’s intended meaning because we inherently contaminate the intended meaning
with our biases (fixed presuppositions that don’t change unless placed under extreme duress), preunderstandings (moldable
22
influences), & noetic effects of sin. Thus, our limitations produces a gap between the interpreter & reality. All interpretations
are
provisional because the starting point for interpretation is our human limitations.
FUNCTIONAL AGNOSTIC GAP: We inherently contaminate reality because of
our human limitations; all interpretations are provisional though legitimate
meaning and doctrinal truths are held with absolute conviction.
Prejudice
Approximation
Reality & Revelation
G
Holistic
(community)
Perception
The gap is what is
between us &
reality; we are
trapped by our
perspectivalism.
A
P
We can only approximate
towards biblical meaning by
means of qualitative dialogue
within the community of God.
There is no way to truly discover the Author/author’s intended meaning because we inherently contaminate the intended meaning
with our biases (fixed presuppositions that don’t change unless placed under extreme duress), preunderstandings (moldable
23
influences), & noetic effects of sin. Thus, our limitations produces a gap between the interpreter & reality. All interpretations
are
provisional because the starting point for interpretation is our human limitations.
Consider the following:
As a result of everyone having these conditions,
generated from both within and from our
subculture of beliefs, customs, and, practices,
some people have argued that we are to be people
of humility because all interpretations of Scripture
are provisional. Nevertheless, this human
limitation shouldn’t stop us from seeking to know
the Scripture, because it fosters the opportunity to
engage in fruitful dialogue within the community
of God. Consider the following quotes from
Darrell Bock in his work, co-authored with Craig
Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism:
24
Consider the following:
“Now in determining meaning there can be both
accuracy and perception” [Ibid., 82]. Then Bock
later states:
However, some degree of distortion of meaning is
inevitable in the interpretation of ancient texts. We
cannot ask those human writers what was meant.
In fact, often a writer is not aware of all the factors
that contribute to the writing and choice of terms.
These factors mean there is a provisional character
to all interpretation no matter how careful we are
[Ibid., 83].”
25
Consider the following:
Now many people would say that this prism is
merely a matter of ‘presuppositions.’ If one has
good presuppositions, they will stand nearer to
truth than one who has bad presuppositions.
But worldviews are not so simple. They are the
result of both presuppositions and what we
might call preunderstandings [Ibid., 59].
Bock & Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, 59.
26
Consider the following:
“Both our limitations and our grid [our way
of seeing] are combined to form a prism
through which we interpret reality and
through which we read our texts. As good as
the text is that which we read, it always comes
to us through the prism we construct of
reality.”
Bock & Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, 59.
27
Consider the following:
Since each person is different, various
worldviews exist. In fact, Bock writes, “They
influence perspective and impact
interpretation; they also can create differences
in reading. But if their role is appreciated,
they can become the subject of fruitful
discussions, even where disagreements exist”
[Ibid., 61].
28
Consider the following:
Through interaction as a community, with
everyone bearing a different perspective or
angle, Bock states that believers can have
hope in developing “sensitive conviction
about the truth. But we must always have an
awareness of our limitations in understanding
that truth, so that we have a sense of the level
of the conviction and clarity with which we
perceive a particular truth” [Ibid., 75].
29
POSTCONSERVATIVE RELATIONAL VIEW OF REALITY:
Experience is the enduring essence of Christianity:
Transactional Experience
We are participants in
culture, relational and
experiential.
God speaks
to us through
His
Word
Relatively inclusive; they have a
‘commitment to ongoing reform
or re-casting of evangelical life,
worship and belief in the light
of God’s word in view of the
various dynamics of culture &
personal experience.
Though meaning has a preexisting history, all interpretation are developmental, changeable,
and contingent expressions of belief that vary from one community to another. The
30
subject/object distinction of reality was a Western construct. We are situated beings;
qualitative dialogue and perspectivalism are emphasized.
Postconservatives Emphasize the following:
Justin Taylor offers a helpful summary of Roger Olson’s list of the
characteristics of postconservative evangelical theology and its
proponents:
(1) They are thoroughly and authentically evangelical;
(2) They embrace a vision of critical and generous orthodoxy;
(3) They believe in experience rather than doctrine as the ongoing
essence of evangelical Christianity;
(4) They express discomfort for foundationalism, metaphysics, and
dogmatic doctrinal positions of belief.
31
Postconservatives Emphasize the following:
(5) They have a strong interest in qualitative dialogue;
(6) They have a broad and relatively inclusive vision of
evangelicalism;
(7) They have a relational view of reality;
(8) They tend to have an inclusivist attitude toward salvation.
(9) Their major unifying motif is a ‘commitment to ongoing reform of
evangelical life, worship and belief in the light of God’s Word.
32
Common to previous three models:
The starting point of interpretation is
the readers’ human limitations. The
preconditions (lenses) by which they
perceive all things impacts their
understanding of the meaning of the
texts or Text.
33
Consider the following quote:
“The honest, active interpreter remains open to change, even to
a significant transformation of preunderstanding. This is the
hermeneutical spiral. Since we accept the Bible’s authority, we
remain open to correction by its message. There are ways to
verify interpretations, or at least, to validate some interpretative
options as more likely than others. It is not a matter of simply
throwing the dice. There is a wide variety of methods available
to help us find what the original texts most likely meant to their
initial readers. Every time we alter our preunderstandings as the
result of our interactions with the text we demonstrate that the
process has objective constraints, otherwise, no change would
occur; we would remain forever entombed in our prior
commitments.”
~ Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and
Robert Hubbard (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993). 115.
34
Common to previous three models:
Mutable framework of preconditions:
One potential solution to the problem
with our prejudices, is that the
Scripture will work in changing the
interpreter’s framework of beliefs.
Is there a serious problem (s) with this view?
35
Critique:
1. If all aspects of our preconditions are
mutable, then there are no immutable
presuppositions or beliefs that provide the
foundation upon which to verify a truth
claim.
They are left with preconditional circularity.
36
Critique:
2. While they acknowledge a prior commitment to
the authority of the Bible, whereby the Bible is
a non-negotiable fact, they also argue that all
interpretations are provisional because of our
human limitations.
They are logically inconsistent.
37
Critique:
We have three other reasons why we can reject representational
model, functional agnostic model, and the postconservative
relational model:
1.
2.
3
We have no reason to believe that these theories are true (they
are self-defeating);
They do not help us to understand the operations of the mind
any better (e.g., does not explain the process of perception;
And with regard to memory and imagination, it introduces
confusion);
Leads to skepticism, solipsism, and even nihilism.
38
DIRECT REALISM: Mind-and-language independent world.
The Idea
DIRECT AWARENESS:
SELF-EVIDENT
The Object itself
Our foundational
beliefs rest upon direct
access to the real
world & objective truth
We see a thing for what it is; we have the capacity to recognize &
categorize.
From many observations we develop a concept of what that thing is.
We learn to associate a term with our awareness of the object by use of
senses.
The object is indeed that kind of thing. We look to confirm what we had
already seen.
We each can compare the object that is given in our experience with our concept (thought) of that object to
39in
determine if they correspond. Thus, we must pay very close attention to what is present before our minds
experience. There is no need to have indubitability to accurately identify or know something.
3 Kinds of Knowledge:
Object X
Simple Seeing: Knowledge by acquaintance.
Thus, I have a direct awareness of object X:
It is not limited to sense perception; we have conscience as well
(e.g., natural, moral law).
Simple seeing comes before the formulation of a concept.
Seeing as: the formulation of a mental judgment. For example,
seeing “red” on an apple formulates a concept of redness.
Seeing that: We have reasons for our belief; it is justified true belief
(eg., we are able to pick out a red apple from among other colored
apples).
40
Apple, anyone?
We saw object X as it is;
We learned to associate the apple’s picture with
the word “apple”;
We developed a concept of what a red apple is
from many observations;
We can go into the grocery store’s produce
section and be able to pick out a red apple from
among other kinds of apples.
41
Consider the following:
In the JETS article, “Post-Conservatives, Foundationalism,
and Theological Truth: A Critical Evaluation” (June 2005) R.
Scott Smith argues the following:
1. Foundationalism or basic beliefs do not require
indubitability or invincible certainty in order for a truth
claim to be justified (.e.g, we exist; Jesus is the only way
to God).
2.
If we have ample reasons or evidence for our belief, than
the burden of proof is upon the person who challenges us.
He contends that we can, and often do.
42
Consider the following:
By way of illustration R. Scott Smith states:
Allison can know that her light is on even though this knowledge is
not completely certain: The proposition Allison takes herself to know
that the light is on, but in fact it is not self-self-contradictory.
However, Allison’s knowledge that the light is on does not require
that this proposition be self-contradictory. Thus one can have
knowledge even though it is logically possible that one is mistaken.
In fact, we sometimes contrast knowing something with know it with
certainty, implying that there is a contrast between knowing with
certainty and simply knowing. Thus simple knowing is till knowing
even if it is not certain [Ibid., 363].
43
Consider the following:
He goes on to say:
But how do we know this? This leads to a crucial point: we each
can compare the object that is given in our experience with our
concept of that object, to see if they match up. That is, I can
compare my thought of something to that thing as it is given in my
experience. I can see if they are the same or different, and can see
if my thought of that thing does (or does not do) anything to modify it.
This is where I think we must pay every close attention to what is
present before our minds in experience, for we can compare our
concepts with things in the world, and we can see that they are
different, and that my thought (or, awareness, or language use) does
not modify its object.
44
Consider the following:
Lastly, R. Scott Smith claims:
As [Dallas] Willard argues, even those who deny such access
to the real world do this all the time, yet they additionally hold
that in thinking, seeing, or mentally acting upon some object,
we modify it, such that we cannot get to the real thing in itself.
But this is nonsense, as that very ability to access the real,
objective world is presupposed in that denial [Ibid., 361].
45
MODERATE THOMIST MODEL: Mind-and-language independent world
grounded in the nature of reality which God created.
DIRECT AWARENESS:
The Idea
The Object itself
SELF-EVIDENT
Direct access to the
real world & objective
truth observable
through the senses
1.
The world is able to enter the mind by virtue of the forms that constitute the things in the world
as the kinds of things they actually are.
2. Objectivity is possible because of the direct connection that the mind has with the world, and the
fact that any truth claim is subject to analysis in terms of first principles of logic (e.g., law of noncontradiction).
3. Self-evident undeniable first principles of thought and being constitute a foundation upon which
objectivity is based.
4. There is an undeniable and unavoidable reality and all truth claims are reducible to first
principles, not deducible from first principles. These first principles are discoverable & universal
because of the nature of reality. While they don’t deny we have preconditions, first principles of
46
logic are transcendental because they transcend every perspective & are the same for all people,
all
times, & in all cultures.
Consider the following:
Norman Geisler argues for validity in interpretation by claiming that
all textual meaning is in the text itself. Geisler states, “The objective
meaning of a text is the one given to it by the author, not the one
attributed to it by the reader” [Geisler, Systematic Theology, 1:173].
He goes on to say, “The meaning is not found beyond the text (in
God’s mind), beneath the text (in the mystic’s mind), or behind the
text (in the author’s unexpressed intention); it is found in the text (in
the author’s expressed meaning). For instance, the beauty of a
sculpture is not found behind, beneath, or beyond the sculpture.
Rather it is expressed in the sculpture” [Ibid., 1:174].
The writer is the efficient cause of the meaning of a text (by which).
47
Geisler applies Aristotle’s six causes of meaning to the issue of
objectivity:
The writer is the efficient cause of the meaning of a text (by which).
The writer’s purpose is the final cause of its meaning (for which).
The writing is the formal cause of its meaning (of which).
The words are the material cause of its meaning (out of which).
The writer’s ideas are the exemplar cause of its meaning (after which).
The laws of thought are the instrumental cause of its meaning (through
which).
48
Bibliography:
Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Ill.: Victor Books, 1993).
Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, 4 vols. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2002).
Thomas Howe, Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation (Advantage Books, 2004).
William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word
Publishing, 1993).
Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: W. A. Wilde Company, 1950).
R. Scott Smith,” Post-Conservatives, Foundationalism, and Theological Truth: A Critical Evaluation” JETS 48/2
(June 2005) 351-63.
Justin Taylor, “An Introduction to Postconservative Evangelicalism and the Rest of This Book,” in Reclaiming the
Center, 20 cf. Roger Olson, “Postconservative Evangelical Theology and the Theological Pilgrimage of Clark
Pinnock,” in Semper Reformandum: Studies in Honour of Clark H. Pinnock, edStanley Porter and Anthony R. Cross
(Carlisle, England: Paternoster, 2003), 36.
Catherine Wilson, Descartes’s Meditations (Cambridge: University Press, 2003).
49