Hermeneutics and the Flawed Interpreter with Poythress

THE FLAWED INTERPRETER

This is drawn from reading Poythress's book on biblical interpretation (Poythress, V. S. (1996). Science and Hermeneutics: Implications of Scientific Method for Biblical Interpretation. In M. Silva (Ed.), Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (M. Silva, Ed.) (452). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

One very important thing that Poythress draws out in this book is that no imperfect creature can interpret the Bible objectively. We all bring our backgrounds, personalities and presuppositions into our interpretation and therefore should keep this in mind. Poythress spends quite a bit of time in his book proving that man cannot be objective in interpretation.[1]

The conclusion of him looking at scientific study of the bible, trying to find objectivity in interpretation, is that you cannot escape what you know. There is no way to objectively study the Scriptures without seeing through the glasses one wears that they have forged throughout their life. Put another way, ‎there is no neutrality in methods or results. Everyone evaluates methods and results with implicit or explicit standards of evaluation.

He argues that no one in this world is truly objective. Humans can approximate objectivity, but can never attain it. We are a bundle of experiences, beliefs and philosophies. All of these combine to make us very subjective. When we attempt to rise out of these things, we can only rise so far. As we interpret reality, and the Scriptures, we bring our problems, emotions, presuppositions and backgrounds into them.

Since everyone has basic commitments, it is not a problem that we have them; it is only a problem if we have the wrong ones. One of our basic commitments must be the knowledge that the noetic effects [2] of sin are real. Because interpreters of God’s word have basic commitments that are tainted by sin, they cannot be complacent. Though the Bible is infallible, our own understanding and interpretation of it is not. Thus, ‎we can and must critically doubt ourselves, but never God or his word.

The real value and meaning of this is that ‎if we become aware of our basic presuppositions, we can evaluate our work and the work of others in different ways. The first is that we ‎can evaluate good or bad commitments that we or others may have and then make adjustments. The second is ‎that our own finiteness should make us realize that we need divine verbal revelation from God in the Bible, since he is infinite and has all knowledge, and therefore can relate things properly all the time. ‎The third is that no one will ever rise above their basic commitments. Our back commitments control us and our interpretation more than we control them. So it is critically important to keep our backgrounds and basic presuppositions in front of us at all times throughout our biblical interpretation.

This does not mean, however, that we cannot interpret the Scripture without any certainty. What it does mean is that we must rely completely upon the Holy Spirit, and the fact that we are new creatures and have God's revelation to aid us in our interpretation. Our job is to make sure that our own flawed views do not cloud the revelation that God has put forth.

---

^[1] Essentially, he spends chapters two through eight walking through the idea that science is not objective and that there is a thought context around a change in thinking in this field.

^[2] Here is understood the idea that the entire thinking of man is corrupt and tainted by sin.