Hermeneutical Dialogue
In my Exegetical Methods class the other day we were discussing the idea of hermeneutics. In particular, we were talking about the benefit of hermeneutical dialogue, especially when it includes voices from several different perspectives into a single conversation (e.g. various socio-economic standings, ethnic histories, denominational affiliations, etc. etc.) The idea was presented that as more voices are represented in the dialogue, and each person is allowed to point out the biases of another, the conversation as a whole naturally transforms toward a more healthy reading of the text.
I can see how this makes sense, since each person who reads a text approaches it with his or her own biases, whether or not they intend to. So it seems logical that the more perspectives respresented in the conversation, the fewer biased readings of a text exist.
My question is this: In the midst of such a hermeneutical dialogue, what is the goal? As the Church body, existing in a variety of contexts, approaches a text and then discusses it, is it gathering to come to a "consensus translation," one on which everyone can agree? If this is the case, as each person points out the biases of another, each voice will have to allow for a bit of compromise as they together strive for a consensus translation. Or is the goal for each perspective to affirm the other perspectives in the conversation, even if they do not agree with each other? They wouldn't be forced to compromise their own translation of the text, but at the same time, there is plenty of room for plurality.
This is just something I've been thinking about... any other thoughts?
posted by Josh @ 10:33 PM
2 comments
links to this post
2 Comments:
Josh,
I suppose it depends on what the goal of the community is and what their social/religious norms are. Certainly, opening interpretation of a text to the community at large is NOT the same thing as saying that all opinions are equal. Moreover, it certainly does not mean that some readings are outright wrong. In any community, there will be those who are better equipped to read a text whose framework will allow for more honest readings.
Also, communities should not be scared of having biases. Gadamer, in his masterpiece on hermeneutics "Truth and Method," makes a very good point on this topic: biases are the very means through which the interpretive process begins. It is only through having an initial bias that we can begin the process of revising how our biases effect our reading of the text. In this sense, a 'community' hermeneutic helps to expose each members biases (whether this be a socio-economic bias OR a bias based on a lack of knowledge).
haven't blogged or read others' blogs in awhile; glad to read yours again.
so what does a given hermeneutic say about the verse claiming that Jesus was tempted in every way common to man? well, i don't know about you, but i think that verse is a bunch of hooey. Jesus didn't daily face the sexual onslaught that we men face today, plain and simple. all the women he met and lived with were clothed head to toe in long flowing robes (or at least that's what the pictures in Sunday School showed us). but drive to work and you'll pass billboard after billboard aimed at our, uh, lowest common denominator, i suppose, not to mention the females we see at work. or at the mall. or on tv. or in the movies. the temptation is endless, and is infinitely more demanding than anything Jesus may or may not have faced in this area.
so what does the verse mean to us? if we have to force a hermeneutic based on inerrancy onto the text, we are forced to twist meanings and try to make the temptations Jesus faced and the temptations we face equal. or, we can just agree that, at the time the passage was written, life was pretty common across peoples and, yes, Jesus *may* have been tempted as everyone of his day was.
our problem is primarily due to the chains we place on these texts even before we read them: that they must mean the same thing to us today as it did to people then, that every verse must be "true" for all times, that there is something "different" about a Bible verse than any other writing.
mike rucker
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home