Hermeneutics and Faith
13 Mar '05 16:302 editsHermeneutics and Faith
Hermeneutics is the craft of interpretation, especially of texts; it consists of the guidelines we adopt when “unpacking” a text in order to answer the question: “What can this mean? How can I understand it?” All textual reading is hermeneutical. Further, it seems that our existential stance toward ourselves and the world we live in is also hermeneutical: we are constantly seeking to interpret what we see, what others say, the workings of our own mind.
A simple example from Biblical exegesis: how are we to interpret the Biblical (especially New Testament) concept of “faith?” How do we understand it?
The underlying Greek word is pistis, whose basic meaning is trust, confidence, trustworthiness (the basic verb form pisteo: “to faith&rdquo😉. It has been translated into English as “faith” (from the Latin fide) and “belief.” Belief seems originally to have had a complex of meanings: to hold dear, to love, to trust, to give permission. [John Ayto, Dictionary of Word Origins] However, in modern usage, “to believe” has also come to mean “to suppose or to think,” “to take as real or true.” [Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Third Edition] If someone uses the word “believe” in these senses, they are putting a new “spin” or interpretation on the original NT concept.
My own interpretation of “faith” follows somewhat from Soren Kierkegaard’s claim that faith is a “leap,” an active decision. So I define faith as a) a decision made, b) based on whatever evidence, c) under conditions of uncertainty; and the willingness to act on that decision. That is, to make a decision and to act confidently on it, even though the outcome is uncertain—that is what a quarterback does when he throws the long pass.
Hermeneutical understandings are always, in the final analysis, provisional. Like faith, they are never beyond question; there is always the possibility of new evidence, conditions must be re-assessed, decisions made again and again. To move from an interpretive understanding to saying something like, "So God must...," or "God necessarily will...," or “This is what you must believe,” is always, I think, a fundamental error.
Comments welcome.
Hermeneutics is the craft of interpretation, especially of texts; it consists of the guidelines we adopt when “unpacking” a text in order to answer the question: “What can this mean? How can I understand it?” All textual reading is hermeneutical. Further, it seems that our existential stance toward ourselves and the world we live in is also hermeneutical: we are constantly seeking to interpret what we see, what others say, the workings of our own mind.
A simple example from Biblical exegesis: how are we to interpret the Biblical (especially New Testament) concept of “faith?” How do we understand it?
The underlying Greek word is pistis, whose basic meaning is trust, confidence, trustworthiness (the basic verb form pisteo: “to faith&rdquo😉. It has been translated into English as “faith” (from the Latin fide) and “belief.” Belief seems originally to have had a complex of meanings: to hold dear, to love, to trust, to give permission. [John Ayto, Dictionary of Word Origins] However, in modern usage, “to believe” has also come to mean “to suppose or to think,” “to take as real or true.” [Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Third Edition] If someone uses the word “believe” in these senses, they are putting a new “spin” or interpretation on the original NT concept.
My own interpretation of “faith” follows somewhat from Soren Kierkegaard’s claim that faith is a “leap,” an active decision. So I define faith as a) a decision made, b) based on whatever evidence, c) under conditions of uncertainty; and the willingness to act on that decision. That is, to make a decision and to act confidently on it, even though the outcome is uncertain—that is what a quarterback does when he throws the long pass.
Hermeneutical understandings are always, in the final analysis, provisional. Like faith, they are never beyond question; there is always the possibility of new evidence, conditions must be re-assessed, decisions made again and again. To move from an interpretive understanding to saying something like, "So God must...," or "God necessarily will...," or “This is what you must believe,” is always, I think, a fundamental error.
Comments welcome.
Back to Top