Emphases in Hermeneutics 

by

Dallas M. Roark, Ph.D

There is considerable stirring going on in the field of interpretation. This is welcome because the science of hermeneutics has gradually developed over the centuries wherever there is found a profound respect for Sacred Scripture and a revival of biblical studies. However, there are certain principles to which we must cling as new interpretations are tried and tested.

The Historico-Grammatical Principal

The historico-grammatical principle came into its own with the Reformation. The historico-grammatical principle may be defined as the interpretation "required by the laws of grammar and the facts of history.”1  This principle implies that all scripture is to be interpreted in its natural literary form. It does not mean, however, that all scripture is to be understood with a barren literalism. Interpretation should not be carried on where there is disregard for the literary vehicles of historical context.

It may be superfluous that such a principle should be emphasized in an enlightened age. However, the principle is not always paramount in the minds of those who are princes among exegetes. No less a scholar than Goodspeed has violated the principle in his translation of the New Testament. In Romans 5:1 he translates, "So as we have been made upright by faith .... "2   In no sense can we maintain that Paul meant that one is made righteous-rather one is declared righteous or accepted as righteous. It may be that we would accept such a doctrine of transformed instantaneous faith-righteousness, or it may be that we would reject Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. The principle in consideration demands, however, regardless of our beliefs, that we interpret the document as the writer set it forth.

The historico-grammatical principle is one basic safeguard against imposing philosophical and theological presuppositions on the text. This is reflected by Father McKenzie:
Indeed, if all scholars were perfectly objective, entire unanimity should be theoretically possible in exegesis itself; for the meaning of the Bible has been determined by its authors, not by its interpreters .... As long as confessional differences persist, the best each of us can do is to know his biases and to see that his scholarly work is affected by them as little as possible?3

The opinion of McKenzie is not the unanimous opinion in Catholic thought today. But there is considerable attempt to promote biblical studies in Roman Catholic theological circles. The papal encyclical, Divine Afflante Spiritu issued by Pius Xll in 1945, placed the stamp of approval on the historico-grammatical approach?

Conservative Christianity seems to be divided over this basic principle. Here lip service is given; but, in actuality, the principle is rejected by more extreme conservatives. The basic problems center around traditional interpretations of scripture. Certain sections of Conservatism seem to hold to ancient interpretations of scripture because they are time-honored. However, we are not bound to any interpretation of scripture simply because it has been handed down. Rather we must support that interpretation which has the best exegetical reasons behind it. The book of Genesis is a battle-ground of interpretation in Conservatism. A historico-grammatical approach can resolve the problem in a number of ways. Historical help can be obtained from the Babylonian creation tablets which furnish an analogous literary vehicle to the Genesis story. Revelatory days, in which the story of creation is recorded, make it possible to view the account with greater integrity than either literal days of creation or as mere saga or myth.

The historico-grammatical approach helps clear up misunderstandings among Jews and Christians. Since Rashi (1040-1105), Isa. 53:8b has been applied to the Jewish nation as the Servant of Jehovah. He maintained that the nation of Israel is the servant who suffers for the sins of the nations of the earth. The Isaiah scroll discovered in the Dead Sea ruins gives evidence that the reading should be "for the transgression of his people was he stricken.” In this sense the nation cannot be regarded as suffering vicariously, or voluntarily, but the Messiah is the suffering servant for the  Jewish people.5

Before concluding this section a word should be said about certain methods used in exegesis. First, demythologizing must be viewed in the light of the historico-grammatical principle. Demythologizing, says Bultmann, is "a method of interpretation of the New Testament which tries to recover the deeper meaning behind the mythological conception” of the scripture. "Its aim is not to eliminate the mythological statements but to interpret them.”6   It must be granted that it is necessary to interpret certain cultural features of the New Testament in terms of our culture. It is axiomatic that cultural views have changed in the progress of the centuries; however, we must be aware how myth is defined. If myth is accepted as Lynn White defines it7  then we have repudiated a definite act of God in history. The gospel, as the good news, the declaration of something that recently happened, has become a principle for all men to live by rather than an act of God’s grace in time.

The second area is Formgeschichte  or Form Criticism. There is nothing inherently wrong with discerning various literary forms in the gospels. A cursory reading of the gospels makes one aware of parables, sayings, miracle stories, and other forms. We must beware, however, of asserting that some forms are "not primarily biographical at all, but rather post-Easter confessions of the church’s faith in the risen and exalted Christ.”8

Bo Reicke is certainly right in saying:
Higher criticism goes methodically wrong when a picture of ]esus which is limited to human and subjective considerations is made the starting point, and when it is then asserted that the Master could not possibly have done or said anything beyond that picture because he did not have the ideological equipment for it. Against the witness of the Gospels nobody can demonstrate exactly what, for Jesus, was possible or not possible, simply because there are no other trustworthy records of him?9

The gospels, though incorporating forms of literature, have the purpose of setting forth certain important facts and events in the life of Christ.”10    Without these we have reoriented the historical tradition into other channels. The historico-grammatical principle must be retained as a stabilizing factor in interpretation.

The Christological Principal

A second principle of interpretation is that which arises out of the text of the New Testament directly and only indirectly in the Old Testament. It is a principle that gives theological meaning to Scripture. This is to make paramount the Christological principle. Bernard Ramm lists two uses of the Christological principle. The first use is that of Luther who is quoted as saying, "If you will interpret well and securely, take Christ with you, for he is the man whom everything concerns."11   In this context all interpretation serves the purpose of finding Christ. It is perhaps true that Luther carried the principle too far and found Christ everywhere in the Old Testament; nevertheless, the principle is a valid one.

The second use is in that area of contemporary theology commonly called neo-orthodoxy. Ramm says of the Christological principle in this framework:

Only that which witnesses to Christ is binding, and doctrines are understood only as they are related to Jesus Christ, the Word of God.”12

Two important concepts are contained in this statement that need qualification. First, we are bound only by that which witnesses to Christ. This is true from both a practical and a doctrinal standpoint. For all practical purposes Christian people are moved very little by the Old Testament apart from the Psalms, Proverbs, alleged support for racial issues, and capital punishment. The gross ignorance of the Old Testament prophets that abounds in church life makes it evident that little is accorded the prophets in the Christian era. From a doctrinal standpoint the New Testament is the basis and judge of all theological systems. Prom the Baptist standpoint we stand or fall with the New Testament. But we must distinguish the application of the principle as stated above from revelation. We must affirm that God has spoken in the past to the prophets and that his word had immediate application and validity to his people.

A more important and far-reaching interpretation of the principle is the second portion. Doctrines are understood only as they are related to Jesus Christ, the Word of God. The implication is a theological one. The application of the principle is more pointedly to the realm of systematic and biblical theology rather than to exegesis per se. As an exegetical device the principle has dangerous implications. But the dangers must be noted along with the validity of the principle, I would not reject the principle as James Muilenburg does but his dictum is worthy of note.

I would . . . reject the Christological formulations of the scholars I have just named (Wilhelm Vischer and his followers, for they seem to me to be constantly reading into the texts what is not really there. And if the common reply is made that the Old Testament writers meant more than they said and more than they realized, I am still unprepared to read the New Testament into the Old in so simple, and indeed, in so drastic a fashion.”
The principle, I feel, must stand as an integral principle of both biblical and systematic studies of theology. The motif of expectation and fulfillment is meaningless without the Christological principle.

The principle has its greatest import in the realm of doctrines. The doctrine of creation does not have its profoundest meaning until it is viewed from the standpoint of the Creating Word. The deepest meanings of sin and atonement are left dangling in the Old Testament without the profound answer of the New Testament. The final meaning of history in the Old Testament takes on its full meaning only in the New Testament from the standpoint of the consummation in Jesus Christ.

We must stand by the Christological principle in that the scripture has its full and real meaning in Christ. Without this application and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ in the early church, without the separation from Judaism, we could possibly yet be gathering for a Shabat service in the synagogue to recite the prayer of expectation for the coming of the Messiah, wondering at the same time if scripture has meaning for history and life.

The Existential Principal

Existentialism is difficult to define because there are a number of different points of orientation. The nebulousness of definition is seen even in Ramm's lack of precise terms. He quotes Kierkegaard, "To read the Bible as God’s  word (ie, existentially) one must read it with his heart in his mouth, on tip-toe, with eager expectancy, in conversation with God.”14    John E.Smith maintains that existentialism involves, among other features, "concern and engagement of the self,” "involvement of the self” in the "problems that involve the ultimate purpose of" 15 one’s own life. Applied to the scriptures it means that one must not read it detached from the meaning of life. Muilenburg’s terminology is useful. The interpreter is both spectator and auditor. As spectator all the resources are to be used. As auditor the interpreter must appropriate the word to himself, the ancient words must somehow become his, he must participate in the live dialogue of the I with the Thou .... Unless some such relationship is established, he will be standing on the outside looking for ideas, conceptions, principles, etc., and other values which it is not the purpose of Scripture in the first instance to offer him.”16
Bultmann has perhaps given the greatest emphasis to existential interpretation. The importance of involvement is reflected in his Jesus Christ and Mythology,
Existentialist philosophy, while it gives no answer to the question of my personal existence, makes personal existence my own personal responsibility, and by doing so it helps to make me open to the word of the Bible.”17

The existential principle means then, that the scripture must be read from the standpoint of personal meaning. This has importance from another standpoint. It means that the interpreter must be within the community of believers to interpret adequately the divine record. This is not simply begging the question. It means that one must be sympathetic with the message before it can be known. This insight reflects something of Kierkegaard when he declared that truth is subjective. It must be experienced before it becomes truth for the person. There is, of course, no truly objective person. The attempt to be objective generally results in “reading out" of the Bible what if there. There is no more subjectivity involved in approaching the scriptures from a naturalistic viewpoint than a theistic viewpoint.” Without the experience of the committed, scripture becomes a book of rnorals, principles, and traditions rather than a medium of confrontation.

A similar nuance of thought hovering around this principle is that interpretation is not complete until the message is put in understandable terms of the auditor. The existential experience cannot be mediated by human conception, but given this foundation the ancient message must be built into modern understanding. This can be done in two ways. First, the gospels speak through the cultural medium as far as it is compatible. Second, the interpreter must often educate the auditor concerning certain biblical concepts which cannot be given up without serious loss.

The existential principle needs certain qualifications, however.  It is one thing to try to read the scripture "with heart in the mouth  and on tip-toe, with eager expectancy,” but it is another to appropriate  the scripture for oneself. Wilhelm Herrmann recognized  this problem in a little different framework long ago. Speaking about necessary doctrines he said: When that "sum" of faith which is supposed to be necessary has been gathered from the Holy Scriptures, and has been logically arranged, and so set forth objectively, how is a man to make this his own subjective property? No one has been able to solve this problem.”

The only answer to this question lies beyond the realm of interpretation. Throckmorton charges Bultmann with attempting or make the kergyma reasonable and believable thereby neglecting the role of the Holy Spirit who "verifies the believer’s faith.”
We must recapture the Reformation emphasis on the testimonium. No man can prove that the scripture is the Word of God. The Spirit alone can testify to this. But without the awareness of the Spirit in interpretation and biblical study, we are faced with two alternatives: cold rationalism or mysticism. Doctrine without personal involvement leads at best to barren intellectualism. On the other hand, doctrine without existential involvement has driven multitudes into a search for experiences akin to mysticism.” At the same time existential involvement must never become an experience apart from the reality of facts and events of the Christian faith. I do not think it possible to sustain existential involvement in the Christian faith where one denies certain important features of the New Testament message. A coin provides genuine feeling of honesty and procurement as long as it is genuine. Once one knows a coin is counterfeited even though it is passed off as genuine, no amount of feeling can allay his knowledge that it is a fake, an imposter. If we attribute value to the Messiah which is basically not there, we are, in essence, pawning off a counterfeit, an imposter, who can do nothing for us in redemption.” At the heart of the Christian faith there are certain facts which must be retained as historically valid, although they cannot be reproduced like other scientific data.
Without them the Christian faith crumbles to the level of an ethical system and to existential despair. With certain facts retained, the God of truth speaks through them to impart grace and meaning to existence.

Conclusion

This brief sketch does not, by any means, point up all the issues in hermeneutical studies today. At best it only gives certain emphases that are important and which, I feel, must be retained in biblical interpretation. A cursory look at the history of biblical studies, and particularly at the field of interpretation points up the danger of jumping on every hermeneutical bandwagon that comes along. There are some things that are old-but are yet true and valid. We cannot afford to reject them because they are old; nor must we accept all the current trends in interpretation because they are new. Open-mindedness must prevail with charity to those who present differing interpretations.

Footnotes:
1-Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1883), p. 203.
2-The Complete Bible, An American translation, (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1925), p. 145.
3-John L. McKenzie, "Problems of Hermeneutics in Roman Catholic Exegesis,"
Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, LXXVH (1958), 199. Donald T.
Rowlingson states a similar opinion in "Let’s Reinstate the Bible Historian!"
Christian Century, LXXVHI (July 5, 1961), 824-26. "The truth of the matter is
that the surge toward a theological interpretation of the Bible in our time involves
a basic mistake."
4-However there is also a movement afoot in Roman Catholicism to expound a
theory of the sensus plenior  defined as "that additional, deeper meaning intended
by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in
the words of a biblical text (or group of texts or even a whole book) when they
are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding
of revelation." (McKenzie quoting Raymond E. Brown, ibid, p. 201). For an
example of Catholic biblical studies one need only consult the Catholic Biblical Quarter or The Bible Today the latter being a new publication.

5-Meshe Immanuel BenMaeir, "Of Whom Speaketh the Prophet?" The Alliance
Weekly.  XCI (August 15, 1956), 5.

6-Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology,   (New York; Charles Scribners’
 Sons .1958), p.18.
7-A myth is not about something that once happened, but rather about something that is always happening: the narrative of an eternal event." Burton Throcknorton, The New Testament and mythology, (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1959),p188.
8Hugh Anderson, "Existential Hermeneutics,"Interpretation, XVI (April 1962), 141. Anderson makes this charge of Bornkamm and others, Note Albright’s remark, "Form-critics are no doubt correct in emphasizing the practical role which the Gospels played in the early church, a role which may well account in part for the survival of certain traditions at the expense of others.  This, however. is very different from the highly subjective and improbable view which form-critics usually hold, that much of the content of the Gospels reflect the life of the sub-apostolic Church.  Archaeological data already speaks with no uncertain voice against the vagaries of radical form criticism according to Dibelius, and even more decisively against the extreme views of his followers.” The Archaeology of Palestine (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1956), p. 242.
9- Bo Reicke, "Incarnation and Exaltation,"Interpretation,” XVI (April 1962, p. 166.
10-William D. Davies of Union Seminary (New York) approves of the argument of Charles Moule of Cambridge concerning the "complete absence in Mark of the Great Pauline motifs in Christology, Pneumatology and Sacramentalism-a fact difficult to understand if we are to find in that Gospel the faith of the church.” Cf_ William D. Davies, "A Quest to be Resumed in New Testament Studies," New Directions in Biblical Thought, ed. Martin E. Marty (New York: Association Press, 1960), p, 65.
11-Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: W.A.Wilde
Company, 1956), p. 56,
12-Ibid., p. 72.
13-James Muilenburg, "Problems in Biblical Hermeneutics," Journal of Biblical Literature,  LXXVII (March 1958), 21-22.
14-Ramm,    p. 75.
15-John E. Smith, "Existential Philosophy,"Handbook of Christian Theology
(New York: Meridan Books, 1958), p. 125.
16-Muilenburg, p. 22.
17-Bultmann, p. 56.
18-  Scottt McCormick, "The Bible as Record and Medium,” Interpretation, VII
(October,1953), 36.
19-Wilhelm Herrmann, The Communion of the Christian with God,  trans, ].
Sandys Stanyon (London: Williams and Norgate, 1895), p. 35.
20- Burton Throckmorton, The New Testament and Mythology, ' (Philadelphia:
Westrninster Press, 1959), p. 205.
21-Cf. Herrmann, p. 30.
22-Cf Bultmann, Form Criticism  (New York: Harper, 1962), pp, 71, 57,
where Bultmann concludes that the Messianic role of Jesus was attributed to him
by the believing community and where the great commission is likewise placed
upon his lips.

Published in the Southwestern Journal of Theology,  October, 1964.