Science and Hermeneutics with Poythress

Science and Hermeneutics

Can I get a revolution?

Before I begin, let me apologize for the length of this blog post. This post will not be a five or ten minute read, but will probably take you a good thirty minutes to an hour, so get a cup of coffee, get in your most comfortable chair, and enjoy.

This post comes from an assignment I have for Advanced Biblical Exegesis. I had to read one of the mini-books inside the book, Foundations of contemporary interpretation, edited by Moisés Silva. This book contains six books: Has the church misread the Bible? (Moisés Silva); Literary approaches to biblical interpretation (Tremper Longman III); God, language and Scripture (Moisés Silva) The art of biblical history (V. Philips Long); Science and hermeneutics (Vern S. Poythress); The study of theology (Richard A. Muller).

The book I chose to read was Science and Hermeneutics: Implications of Scientific Method for Biblical Interpretation, first, because of had read many positive things about Poythress, second, because underneath it all, I love science and methodology. Thus, because of name recognition and my natural temperament I chose to read this book. And wow, was it ever worth it.

This blog post is going to attempt to summarize the book in less than 1,000 words (just below), then to summarize the highlights of the book (not 1,000 words...below the outline). But before you decide whether you are going to read this blog, you may be asking yourself, "Why should I read it?" Well, the answer to that question is four-fold. First, if you enjoy biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) then you will more than likely enjoy this post. Second, if you like to experience things that will make you question first principles (presuppositions) and really evaluate why you believe what you believe, then you most likely will enjoy this post. Third, if you have any interest in methodology or progress within hermeneutics. Fourth and finally, you want to walk away a different person (this is how I gauge whether a book is good or not...does it change me?).

So let me summarize the book in a few brief paragraphs before giving a more in-depth summary of the book.

THE SUMMARY

Poythress, having read and evaluated Thomas Kuhn's work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, seems to be asking the question, "Is it possible to have a scientific methodology (what some assume is objective) in biblical interpretation that will allow us to be more or less sure of our interpretation? Is it possible for biblical interpretation as a subject to have a great revolution toward this end, or will it simply be a slow and steady progress?" In his own words:

What is scientific method? Does it guarantee a cumulative growth of knowledge? Until recently, people commonly thought that scientific knowledge increased by the smooth addition of one fact to another, the smooth refinement of an existing theory, or the smooth extension of a theory to cover new data. By analogy, ought we to expect knowledge of the Bible to progress by accumulation? Can we devise a method that will provide such progress? Or is such progress illusory even in science? Are we to expect occasional “revolutions” in biblical interpretation analogous to the revolutions in scientific theory that are investigated in some of the recent trends in the history and philosophy of science? ¹

Essentially, he concludes that though it is not possible for radical revolutions to happen very often in biblical interpretation, we ourselves can have mini-revolutions when we get outside our own perspectives and break free from dominant though patterns that keep us from interpreting the bible successfully. He essentially holds that there is no truly objective way to do science or hermeneutics.

He advocates that we all have a set of presuppositions (like a set of shaded glasses that we see the world through) that are not as pristine as we might think. He claims that it is not possible to remove ourselves from our presuppositions. He says that we must become aware of the framework that we perform biblical interpretation through so that we can become "more" objective in our interpretations than we normally would be. Thus, the solution to the dilemma of how do we objectively interpret the bible is the wrong question, rather, the question is how do we allow ourselves to view a passage from various perspectives to allow us to get a better interpretation?

He is not advocating relativism here, but rather that often we force one particular model based upon a framework, context or worldview upon the Scriptures and always see it through that perspective rather than getting a full-orbed view of it through multiple perspectives. If we can escape a single perspective model, then we will be able to see the Scriptures in a much deeper and clearer light and thus be better interpreters, making progress in interpretation as a field of study and practice.

How do we escape a single perspective model? He concludes that this is done through thematic theologies. These can uncover logical and thematic linkages in the bible that can help in interpreting difficult passages. He concludes that these thematic theologies can be very helpful in uncovering bits of insight and truth that uncover logical and thematic linkages in the bible that truly are there and help in difficult passages. Though some find danger in organizing an interpretation by a theme, it is not dangerous to do so unless the theme is understood in an unbiblical way.

He offers a method for these difficult passages: First, try to make sense of a passage by looking at it from the viewpoint of a new theme or analogy. Second, ask if there is something else about the passage that cannot be seen until it is looked at in a non-customary way.

Thus, it is useful to adopt several different perspectives in order that we may notice several types of points being made and several types of possible connections with the message of the Bible as a whole.

This can be done by a set of questions and an approach (if done carefully and knowing the pitfalls):

The questions:

1. Are the human beings in a passage analogous to us? 
2. Does the passage reveal something of God's character that remains the same for us?
3. Does a meditorial figure in a  passage function in a way that illuminates Christ's final mediatorship?
4. Do themes of a whole book of the bible illumine the passage?
5. View the passage from the perspective of various prominent biblical themes: covenant, promise and fulfillment, judgment, temple, theophany, kingdom, eschatology, creation/re-creation, etc.

The approach according to the four-fold approach of analogies (he noted this in a footnote, but it seems important):

• Immediate propositional truth (look at the "literal" meaning)
• Moral applications (look at the "physical" or "moral" meaning)
• Fulfillment in Christ and the church (look at the "Spiritual" meaning)
• Promise of the heavenly Jerusalem to which our history is progressing (look at the "Anagogical" meaning, referring to scriptural exegesis that detects allusions to heaven or the afterlife)

So next time you are reading a difficult passage, like Romans 7, ask these questions, and then look at the four-fold approach to analogies.

Before I begin, I though you might like to see the table of contents taken directly from the book itself so you can see where it is going.

THE TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE BOOK

HOW SHOULD WE INTERPRET THE BIBLE?

• Should Biblical Interpretation Become Scientific?

• An Example: Interpreting Romans 7

• Using Context in Interpretation

• The Influence of Overall Theological System and Personal Experience

• Scientific Method and Objectivity

THE INFLUENCE OF NATURAL SCIENCE ON BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

• Using Specific Theories to Test the Truth of the Bible

• Building a Worldview on the Basis of Scientific Results

• Building an Epistemology on the Basis of Scientific Method: The Example of Kant

• Baconian and Positivistic Understanding of Science

THOMAS KUHN AND CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSIONS OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY

• The Scientific Revolutions of the Twentieth Century

• Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in History and Philosophy of Science

• A Specific Illustration of Kuhn’s Theory

IMPLICATIONS OF KUHN’S THEORY FOR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

• Preliminary Evaluation of Kuhn

• Romans 7 Compared with Immature Science

• The Possibility of Revolution in Biblical Interpretation

• The Historical-Critical Method as a Revolution

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION AND SCIENCE

• What Counts as Superior Biblical Revelation?

• The Experience of God: A Fundamental Difference Between Biblical Interpretation and Science

• Kuhn’s Relevance in the Midst of the Differences

DISCIPLINARY MATRICES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

• The Dynamics of Intellectual Development in Biblical Interpretation

• Types of Disciplinary Matrices in Biblical Interpretation

• Knowledge as Contextually Colored

• Seeing Patterns

• Why Limited Vision Does Not Imply Relativism

MODELS IN SCIENCE AND IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

• Influence of Models in Science

• Analogy in Romans 7

• A Role for Analogy in Theological Controversies

• Types of Analogies

ANALOGIES AS PERSPECTIVES

• Analogies as Complementary

• Using Multiple Analogies

• Can an Analogy Represent Truth?

• Foundations for Multiplicity in Biblical Interpretation

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THE CONTEXTUAL CHARACTER OF KNOWLEDGE

• Learning About Basic Commitments or Presuppositions

• Learning That Facts Are Theory-laden

• Evaluating Competing Research Programs in Biblical Interpretation

USING PERSPECTIVES

• Dealing with Differing Points of View

• Multiple Approaches to Truth

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION REORGANIZED USING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

• Thematic Reorganization

• Liberation as a Theme

• Money as a Theme

• Reorganizing the Study of a Biblical Passage

• Studying the Thematic Relations of Biblical Passages

PROSPECTS FOR DEEPENING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE

• Appendix: Interpretive Method and Other Fields of Research ²

Please note, in the below I have tried to cite direct quotes as much as possible, but I do not claim that I have quoted them all. All content below is from Poythress, and is not my own ideas.

THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BOOK

The first chapter (HOW SHOULD WE INTERPRET THE BIBLE?) of Poythress's book lays the groundwork for the entire book, asking the question whether or not the bible can be interpreted in an objective manner. He asks the question whether or not biblical interpretation and theology can and will make steady strides towards a more objective approach or whether it will happen in great revolutions similar to science.

He then uses an example of biblical interpretation from Romans 7 (a disputed passage regarding its meaning) giving three views. He asks which one is correct, and how do we know. He gives the options on how we determine this: look at the passage itself and see which one fits, or weigh their strengths and weaknesses. However, he shows that this method does not work because a person's theological system and personal experience will influence their interpretation. He goes on to explain that because: there are differing interpretations of the Bible; these differing interpretations contradict each other; individual interpretations sometimes contradict themselves or appear to contradict other passages in the Bible; interpreters have ideas and views regarding theology that effect their interpretation; interpreters have life experiences that effect their interpretation; and interpreters have different temperaments that effect their interpretation that an objective method to determine apparent contradictions would be nice to have.

He then asks the question of whether science may be able to help because many claim that it offers a dispassionate, objective analysis. Shouldn't biblical interpretation be freed from doctrinal moorings and personal experiences. He answers the question right away that the claim that science's claim to objectivity is an illusion. He claims that one cannot remove themselves from their underlying presuppositions. He gives the example of the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation showing it as a failed attempt at objectivity. It was affected by commitments, assumptions and philosophies. 

He then goes on to say that even science,

...has revealed, in a word, how people’s understanding of a particular datum (e.g., Rom. 7:14–25) is influenced by a whole cluster of interpretations, assumptions, and experiences, which provide the matrix for understanding in the field as a whole. ³

From here he moves on into chapter two (THE INFLUENCE OF NATURAL SCIENCE ON BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION) where he poses the question of whether biblical interpretation needs to interact with science at all? He answers this question by showing that the history of interpretation pales in comparison with the gains found in science. Science made predictions, came up with general principles and even created a framework for continual advancement. Science even provided knowledge about the world, and an ever-increasing amount of knowledge in general.

He gives three different uses of science that have relevancy to biblical interpretation. They are: the use of science to evaluate specific theories, and for of dealing with contradiction; the use of science to evaluate specific theories, and ways of dealing with contradiction; and the use of science to build an epistemology.

As far as using science to evaluate specific theories or apparent contradictions, general scientific theory doesn't impact the bible that much because it assumes that things continue as they are and that God doesn't do things out of the ordinary.

As far as using science to build a worldview, these were created from science when people saw that science could offer them an explanation of how the world fit together and their role in it. But these worldviews offered an alternate worldview, alternate values and an alternate explanation of the nature and destiny of man. Thus, these were challenging to biblical religion.

As far as using science to build an epistemology, or the source of insight about the nature of knowledge itself,

it can produce a worldview that doesn't match science, but is motivated by religious and philosophical needs.

But another group studied science in the real world and assumed regularity and real laws. This is the (Baconian) scientific method: gather data, formulate a general rule to account for the data, derive predictions from the general rule, check predictions with experiments, and if the prediction comes true, it becomes a (tentative) law, if the predictions are false, go back to the second step.

This method had great results and it was applied to biblical interpretation and resulted in the historical-critical method. This method assumed that the same laws of now governed the past as well, so they shut God out of acting in time and space.

But this inductive view of knowledge is inadequate, because it leads to distortions and hindrances in the progress of knowledge. Relativity and quantum theory were revolutions that blew away this model and proved this inductive view of scientific research to be naive.

In the third chapter (IMPLICATIONS OF KUHN’S THEORY FOR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION) he explains two major ideas that he will use throughout the book. The first is a disciplinary matrix which is the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on that is shared by members of the community. It is a set of methodologies and beliefs that are shared. The second is an exemplar, which is a concrete research result that provides a type of meta-solution, or problem-solving suggestions, or concrete puzzle solutions.\

He shows that in revolutions, a disciplinary matrix is produced, many anomalies occur and then various groups center around those anomalies. In speaking about how scientific discovery is made in order to apply it to hermeneutics, he explains how scientific revolutions are not things that happen out of the blue, but are spurred by a crisis, where there is a need for an answer that an existing system doesn't and cannot provide. When revolutions occur, they create different groups who allow particular truths and decide what is relevant or not.

In chapter four (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION AND SCIENCE) he explains that a revolution takes place when a variant to the disciplinary matrix comes about, and someone in the field finds a new way of looking at anomalies even though it is incompatible with the old matrix, but because it proves superior in explaining the anomalies, explaining most of the phenomena that the old theory explained, and suggests a whole pattern of research that shows promise of explaining more phenomena than the old theory could, then it picks up adherents and begins to become a new disciplinary matrix.

He shows this by giving an example of the historical-critical method. But the problem with the historical-critical method is that it did not take into account that the Bible is different than science. The bible relates to the needs of the church. The bible has presuppositions of authority and overrides the words of men. Its basic presuppositions ruled out the historical-critical method from the beginning, because it ruled out the very authority in the bible itself.

The fifth chapter (DISCIPLINARY MATRICES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION) he explains that as people we will generally stick with an explanation (exemplar) until we start having problems with it. Adventurous individuals begin to tinker with the existing disciplinary matrix to find solutions to these problems. When these people do not find a solution within the disciplinary matrix, they try more radical alternatives than just tinkering, they actually attempt to create a new alternative. If the alternative is a success, more and more people convert to it. When many people convert to the new alternative, a revolution begins.

Revolutions in biblical interpretation, or changes in disciplinary matrix, can be more or less major, or radical, in character. The disciplinary matrix of a theological community includes a network of many different kinds of assumptions and values. In bible study we may not see a possible interpretive alternative until we abandon familiar ways of thinking. Any disciplinary matrix by suggesting solutions primarily in one direction can make people almost blind to the possibility of solutions in another direction.

In the sixth chapter (MODELS IN SCIENCE AND IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION) Poythress seems to be driving at the fact that when we look at a passage, the ideas that relate to other passages should be viewed as analogies that must be plugged into the existing passage and used as a model to come up with the varying views of the passage. These analogies or models that we have inside influence what we see and influence our judgments about which competitive interpretations are plausible.

He gives six types of analogies: one-line comparison, a small-scale analogy, in the form of a simple metaphor or simile; an extended analogy, constituting a controlling force in a whole passage; an analogy used repeatedly in different passages of the bible, so that it constitutes a biblical theme; an analogy used to help interpret a passage, even though it is not the governing analogy for itself ; an analogy used in formulating a particular doctrine; and an analogy used as an element in a theological or hermeneutical system. But the deepest factor that influences biblical interpretation is the Holy Spirit in regeneration. The Holy Spirit enables people to see relationships in the bible and between certain teaching and their own life experiences.

In chapter seven (ANALOGIES AS PERSPECTIVES) he is driving toward the conclusion of his book. He claims that multiple analogies may be used and thus must be seen as complimentary. The Bible itself uses multiple analogies in its teaching about the church. His major thrust seems to be that there is profit to approaching a single text or topic from a number of different perspectives, each of which will use a different controlling analogy. By using another analogy we get illumination about the passage itself and the relation of the passage to larger concerns in the bible.

Biblical theology desires to have a center that will capture the inner structure of the biblical material itself, not simply organize the teaching of the Bible in terms of traditional topics (God, human beings, Christ, salvation, last things, etc.). Yet more than one center has been advocated for the Old Testament, e.g. the covenant, the kingdom of God, Israel’s confession, and promise. The organizing center one chooses makes a difference. It functions as an exemplar.

He argues that no single organizing center is uniquely the right one. Metaphors assert truth about an analogical structure in the world, and thus they assert truth about their principal subject. Biblical analogies express profound truths, they are not tricks. In science, using multiple models is an imperfection, because it would be better to use a single, comprehensive model.

He asks the question as to whether biblical interpretation should strive for one model? Yet, in biblical interpretation it is OK to use multiple perspectives because it is not really analogous to science.He argues that human phenomena are innately more complex than natural phenomena, and thus it may not be possible to capture them adequately using only one model or analogy. Thus, he claims that it is not surprising that dealing with human beings is so complex, because they are made in the image of God. Because of who God is there is no one analogy that can claim uniquely to be the starting point for forming a model or theory of God.

He concludes that biblical interpretation cannot be satisfied by a single, dominant model and thus he argues that the use of multiple analogies could become a rule of thumb which would be one element in a disciplinary matrix.

In chapter eight (LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THE CONTEXTUAL CHARACTER OF KNOWLEDGE) he argues that you cannot escape what you know, you can't learn without seeing through the very glasses that you yourself have forged. He claims that exegesis and theological reflection take place against the backdrop of underlying presuppositions or fundamental assumptions about the nature of the universe and man. These are always motivated by the personal values of the interpreter. Thus, methods and results are evaluated by these fundamental standards and epistemological values.

Therefore, there is no neutrality in methods or results because everyone evaluates methods and results with implicit or explicit standards of evaluation. These commitments are so basic, that it is important to have the right ones. They affect everything that we do.

Christians have basic presuppositions that are tainted by sin, thus we can't be complacent. Our own understanding of the bible is fallible. Thus, We can critically doubt ourselves, but not God or his word. Our finiteness should make us realize that we need divine verbal revelation from, the bible. A person will never rise above their basic commitments. They control us and our interpretation more than we control them.

All facts are theory-laden. Facts are not strictly objective, they are not the same for everyone, regardless of their disciplinary framework! Difference in framework may result in subtle difference of how facts are seen.

Facts receive vastly different treatment depending on the disciplinary framework that is presumed. Basic commitments influence the development of any disciplinary framework. This includes methods of approach to biblical text and modern facts. A disciplinary framework can even influence the basic commitments of those involved with it. The framework pushes facts, telling adherents that these types of facts are important. Appeals to "the facts" should not be intimidating when trying to choose a disciplinary framework.

Then in chapter nine (USING PERSPECTIVES) he asks the question of whether differences in disciplinary frameworks must always lead to a competition between different schools and the eventual triumph of one school. Or Can we sometimes incorporate insights from different points of view into a richer whole?

He claims that each perspective is better at seeing and emphasizing certain truths of Scripture. Thus, he argues that it would be a good idea to use a multiplicity of perspectives. After determining what analogy, if any, is indeed dominant in a given passage of Scripture, we should not hesitate to see how other biblical analogies illumine the same passage.

He says that we should not put all our eggs in one theological basket, allow other analogies to pervade your thinking and run your interpretations through them. We must listen to others in the church that God has gifted in other ways then we are. We must listen to other analogies or themes than our favorite.

Finally, in chapter ten (BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION REORGANIZED USING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES) he concludes that there isn't a danger in organizing theology by a theme, but rather if the theme is understood in an unbiblical way. If it is understood wrongly it can get into the whole texture of theology. Thematic theologies can be very helpful in uncovering bits of insight and truth that uncover logical and thematic linkages in the bible that truly are there.

He offers a method: try to make sense of a passage by looking at it from the viewpoint of a new theme or analogy. Is there something else about the passage that I couldn't see until looking at it in a non-customary way?

Any prominent theme of the bible can potentially be used as a perspective or window. "When we are dealing with a difficult passage, anything that can move us away from a deadlock is worth looking at." ⁴

Thus, the conclusion of the book is:

It is useful to adopt several different perspectives in order that we may notice several types of points being made and several types of possible connections with the message of the Bible as a whole. These are a set of questions and an approach:

1. Are the human beings in a passage analogous to us? 
2. Does the passage reveal something of God's character that remains the same for us?
3. Does a meditorial figure in a  passage function in a way that illuminates Christ's final mediatorship?
4. Do themes of a whole book of the bible illumine the passage?
5. According to the four-fold approach of analogies:

• Immediate propositional truth ("literal" meaning)
• Moral applications ("physical" or "moral" meaning)
• Fulfillment in Christ and the church ("Spiritual" meaning)
• Promise of the heavenly Jerusalem to which our history is progressing ("Anagogical" meaning)

And in the final chapter (PROSPECTS FOR DEEPENING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE) he concludes that worldviews, frameworks, and overall contexts influence knowledge and discovery in all areas. No one has a clean standpoint from which to acquire knowledge.

In his own words:

1. We are challenged to become more aware of our dependence on God and of the significant role of the Holy Spirit and of our Christian commitment in influencing the acquisition of knowledge in general and biblical interpretation in particular. We become more aware of the contamination of sin in the intellectual realm. We must be self-critical as well as critical of others.

2. Becoming more aware of the influence of theological systems on interpretation, we are in a better position to conduct dialogue with those adhering to other systems.

3. We may be called upon to undertake a reorganization of our theological system or our interpretive practices in order, without compromising the biblical message, to communicate it more effectively to the people inhabiting the culture.

4. Our observations about perspectives challenge us to look at old passages of the Bible in new ways. ⁵

1. 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.) (437–438). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
2. Ibid. (433–434).
3. Ibid. (442).
4. Ibid. (522).
6. Ibid. (525-526).