Jewish Hermeneutics

Jewish Hermeneutics refers to the way Jewish people interpret their sacred texts, especially the Bible. It has a long
history and was shaped by the beliefs and goals of Jewish communities. Three main groups influence early Christian
development: the rabbis, the Qumran sect, and various Diaspora Jewish groups.

The Rabbis

The Rabbis were influential in shaping Jewish interpretation. They aimed to make the Bible accessible as a guide for
Jewish life, drawing from oral traditions passed down by scribes and teachers. These traditions eventually formed
written collections like the Mishnah, Gemara, and Talmud. Initially, oral law developed alongside the written Torah,
but doubts about its authority arose, leading to the need to show unity between written and oral law. Rabbinical
scholars claimed both came from God's revelation to Moses, but they had to prove this using biblical texts. They
developed methods to align text, tradition, and contemporary application, though these methods may seem strange
to modern readers.

The idea of necessary coordination led to the creation of various sets of rules by rabbis to interpret the Bible. These
rules, called middot, are found in ancient texts like the Mishnah and the Sifra commentary on Numbers. One
tradition credits Rabbi Ishmael with thirteen of these rules, although their exact origins are uncertain. These rules
were considered important, with some believing they were given by God to Moses. They were used to solve legal
problems and everyday issues by logically deducing from the biblical text, paying attention to its structure and
language. Unlike Rabbi Akiba, who saw mystical meanings in every detail, Rabbi Ishmael believed in a more rational
approach to interpreting the Torah.

A shorter and likely older set of seven rules called middot was attributed to Rabbi Hillel, who lived around the same
time as Jesus. Legend says Hillel became famous for solving whether the Passover could be observed on a Sabbath
using these rules before the Sanhedrin. These rules reflect Greek logic and methods of argument. While they were
used for legal teaching (halaka), they weren't the only way the scriptures were interpreted. Another set of rules,
expanded by Rabbi Ishmael's student Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose to thirty-two middot, searched for deeper meanings in
the text. This included techniques like wordplay, numerical calculations, and word division, suggesting a belief in
hidden mysteries within the Scriptures. This supports the idea of rabbinical allegorism, finding deeper spiritual
meanings beyond the literal text.

The Qumran Community

The Qumran Community, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, was a group of Essenes living at Qumran during the
time after the Maccabean revolt until the Roman wars. They believed they were living in the end times and saw
themselves as the faithful remnant of Israel awaiting God's final revelation. They rejected the Temple in Jerusalem
and its priests, viewing themselves as the true guardians of God's message. For these people, biblical interpretation
had the purpose of reading the signs of the time and providing guidance for living in it. Its most characteristic feature
was pesher exegesis (from the Aramaic psr, to interpret), a form of commentary which applied biblical texts,
especially from prophetic books, to the immediate situation of the sect and its struggles. (Their interpretation of the
Bible, especially prophetic books, focused on understanding their current situation and struggles.) They believed
their leader, the "Teacher of Righteousness," had the key to unlocking hidden meanings in the text, much like Moses
and Ezra. While they still valued the Torah, their main focus was on interpreting it in light of the end times and the
teachings of their leader. This shift in focus from the Torah to the prophets and the authority of their leader reflects
their eschatological beliefs.

Diaspora Jewish groups

A third approach to interpreting Jewish scriptures was popular among Jews living outside of Israel, particularly in
places like Alexandria, Egypt. This method is best represented by the extensive writings of Philo, who lived around
the same time as Hillel and Jesus. Philo's works have been preserved largely because of later Christian interest in
them.

In the cultured environment of Alexandria, where there were schools and a strong interest in ancient texts, Jews
were not only able to maintain their traditional practices but also to present the Jewish law in a way that appealed to
Greek thinkers. In Egypt, some defenders of Judaism boldly argued that Greek philosophers actually drew inspiration
from the teachings of Moses and the prophets.

The Jewish scriptures used in Alexandria were known as the Septuagint. It included the Torah, prophets, and psalms,
similar to the later Pharisaic canon. However, it also contained additional books such as Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Esdras,
and Ecclesiasticus. These extra books are considered "Apocrypha" by Protestants but are retained as
deuterocanonical by Roman Catholics because the Latin Vulgate followed the Septuagint.

The Greek translation of Jewish scriptures in Alexandria was defended by some who saw it as divinely inspired,
influenced by Hellenistic ideas of inspiration. This view suggested that the sacred texts were directly influenced by
God, ranging from the writer being in a state of ecstasy to receiving verbal dictation. This Hellenistic concept also led
to the belief in a deeper spiritual meaning behind the words, which interpreters had to uncover through allegory.
This approach was similar to how ancient Greek poets like Homer and Hesiod were interpreted, with their texts seen
as containing hidden cosmological or ethical truths beneath their mythical stories. This belief in divine inspiration
gave these texts authority and sparked creative interpretations, both in creating new allegorical poetry and in
reinterpreting older texts.

During this time, Jewish apologists spread the story that seventy or seventy-two elders, endorsed by the Alexandrian
Jewish community in the third century B.C., translated their holy books into Greek. Philo, a Jewish philosopher, even
embellished the legend by saying these elders, working separately, miraculously produced the same translation as if
guided by an invisible teacher. For centuries, the Septuagint, as this translation was known, held more authority than
the Hebrew text among Jews in the Diaspora and Christians, who embraced its miraculous origin story.

Philo was knowledgeable about Jewish traditions but also embraced the philosophical ideas of Stoicism and
Platonism. He believed that behind the apparent "impossibilities," "impieties," and "absurdities" in the Bible lay
deeper philosophical truths. By carefully analyzing the text for clues like contradictions and mysterious numbers,
Philo believed he could uncover these truths, aligning them with the philosophical wisdom of his time. In his
commentaries on Genesis and Exodus, Philo offered insightful interpretations, such as seeing the two creation
accounts as representing different aspects of human nature and understanding the story of Abraham and Sarah as
illustrating the relationship between the mind and virtue. Like earlier Jewish and Greek thinkers, Philo used a Platonic
framework to interpret the Bible, seeing its literal meaning as its body and its deeper spiritual meaning as its soul.

The period of the Reformation

In the fourteenth century, Nicholas of Lyra and John Wycliffe moved away from Origen's allegorical interpretation of
the Bible. However, allegorizing wasn't completely rejected. Even in the debate between Erasmus and Luther, there
were doubts about the clarity of Scripture. The Enlightenment further complicated matters by raising genuine
concerns about how to interpret the Bible. Scholars agreed that theology alone couldn't solve all interpretive
questions, and faith couldn't resolve issues related to language, history, or other details about biblical authors. Some
Enlightenment thinkers even approached the Bible purely as secular literature or human writings. This complexity led
to varied approaches to biblical criticism during the Reformation period, with Reformers adopting different methods.

During the Renaissance, knowledge spread, education became more secular, and people became better at
interpreting texts, including the Bible. This sparked greater interest in understanding its meaning. Protestant
interpretation of the Bible was strongly influenced by the Reformation's spirit, emphasizing the sole authority of
Scripture (Sola Scriptura). Unlike Catholic interpretation, which relied on the teachings of early church figures and
tradition, the Reformers rejected the idea of authoritative interpretation.

To the Reformers, Scripture was the sole basis of faith (Sola Scriptura). Sola Scriptura is a Latin term that means
"Scripture alone." It is a principle in Protestant theology which asserts that the Bible, specifically the Old and New
Testaments, is the sole authoritative source of Christian doctrine and practice. According to Sola Scriptura, the Bible
is sufficient for understanding God's will and for guiding believers in matters of faith and conduct. This principle
rejects the authority of tradition, church hierarchy, and other external sources in matters of doctrine, asserting that
only Scripture should be relied upon for understanding and interpreting Christian beliefs. The reformers insisted on
their understanding of the Bible, no matter what previous exegetes (early teachers of faith) have said, no matter
whether it contradicted even the decisions of the Church Councils. The reformers also insisted on a historical
grammatical understanding of the Bible since they believed that a new authority must be set up to oppose the
authority of the church. This new authority is the authority of the Scripture itself.

John Wycliffe (1328-84) was a student at Baliol College, Oxford. He believed that the Bible was the ultimate authority
for Christians, and he based all his reforms on its teachings. He wanted the Bible to be the standard by which Church
Councils and religious experiences were judged. Some people see Wycliffe as the beginning of the Reformation
because he wrote against the authority of the papacy and the doctrine of transubstantiation. Wycliffe had followers
known as Lollards.

Wycliffe argued that interpreting Scripture should align with the author's intention, requiring moral integrity and
virtuous character. He believed that philosophical knowledge and social goodness were also necessary. He viewed
the Bible as God's law to guide the Church, which he saw as the body of Christ. Wycliffe emphasized the importance
of clergy having a deep understanding of Scripture and practicing self-discipline. He translated the Bible into English
and wrote commentaries on various books to highlight its truth, inspiration, authority, and sufficiency.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) had a significant moment while studying Psalm 31:1, which says, "Deliver me in your
righteousness." He realized that his own efforts to be righteous, even as a devoted monk, were futile. He felt
condemned by God's righteousness. However, he had a breakthrough when he understood that the righteousness of
God in the Bible refers to the righteousness of Christ, which brings salvation through grace alone. Believers can only
receive this righteousness as a gift.

Luther emphasized the importance of focusing on books of the Bible that center on Christ because Christ is the core
message of Scripture. He believed that these books were apostolic, meaning they preached Christ. For centuries, the
Church had relied on complex interpretations and allegories to explain theology, but Luther found clarity in the
Epistle to the Romans, which revealed to him the true nature of Christ and salvation. He particularly valued Paul's
letters, especially Romans and Galatians, as they contained the essence of the gospel. Luther believed that God
speaks directly to individuals through Scripture and that the Bible itself is its best interpreter, making patristic
commentaries unnecessary.

Luther was unhappy with the Epistle of James which he called as the Epistle of straw because he did not think that it
did adequately emphasize justification by grace. James was giving much emphasis to one’s works (James 2:17). The
epistle to the Hebrews was also not acceptable to him because it rejected the possibility of a second repentance
(Hebrews 6:5). Everything in the scripture was not word of God for Luther. Many regard Luther’s translation of the
Bible into German as his greatest single work.

Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) fully supported Martin Luther's ideas, and when Luther needed to step back
temporarily, Melanchthon stepped up to promote Luther's teachings. Unlike Luther, Melanchthon was less opposed
to Zwingli's views on the Eucharist. He prioritized maintaining peace and unity among the Reformers.

In 1530, Melanchthon played a key role in creating the Augsburg Confession, a statement of faith accepted by
German Protestants. It remains an important doctrinal document in Lutheran tradition. While Luther focused on
writing commentaries, Melanchthon concentrated on developing systematic theology based on the Bible. He wrote
works on books like Romans, John, and Matthew, interpreting them mainly according to their literal meaning.
Although his writings were similar to Luther's, Melanchthon's approach was perhaps more critical and analytical.

Further Reform under Tyndale and Calvin

William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) was the first to translate the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into English. Educated at
Oxford and Cambridge, he was heavily influenced by Luther's theology. He believed that Scripture has the power to
name, appoint, promise, give, condemn, kill, and give life.

John Calvin (1509-64), educated in Paris, focused on an objective interpretation of Scripture. He wrote commentaries
on all books of the Bible and developed separate theological works. For Calvin, Scripture itself is the authority for
Christian belief, rather than any interpretation centered solely on Christ. He viewed Scripture and its interpretation as
a means of seeing God, rejecting allegorical interpretations in favor of emphasizing faith while avoiding subjectivism.
He sought to understand the author's intentions and respected biblical history, emphasizing the continuity between
covenants and the divine providence linking all people and events in the Bible.

Later in the Reformation, there was a departure from Luther's teachings. Some began to emphasize the traditional
ideas of verbal inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, which Luther did not support. In the 17th century, Protestant
orthodoxy became rigid, resembling the rigidity of the medieval church. The Church of England also accepted the
primacy of Scripture as a principle, as outlined in Articles 6, 8, and 19 of the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church.

Protestant Orthodoxy and Pietism

Following the Reformation, there was a rise of Protestant orthodoxy. Protestant orthodoxy refers to the theological
and doctrinal framework that emerged within Protestantism in the wake of the Reformation, particularly during the
16th and 17th centuries. Mattathias Flacius Illyricus (1520-75), a professor at Wittenberg, wrote to defend Protestant
beliefs against the Roman Catholic Church. Christopher Wolff (1679-1754), influenced by Pietism and Enlightenment
philosophy, introduced the idea of considering the multiple intentions of an author. J.C. Danhauer published a book
titled "Hermeneutics" in 1954, which marked the first use of the term "hermeneutics" derived from Greek rather
than the Latin term "theory of interpretation." Protestant orthodoxy aimed to establish and defend orthodox beliefs
against challenges from within and outside the Protestant movement. Some key characteristics of Protestant
orthodoxy include:

Doctrinal Precision: Protestant orthodoxy emphasized clear and precise statements of doctrine, often articulated in
confessions of faith or catechisms. These documents sought to outline and safeguard the fundamental beliefs of
Protestant Christianity. Biblical Authority: Central to Protestant orthodoxy was the affirmation of the authority of
Scripture as the ultimate source of religious truth. The Bible was considered to be inspired and infallible, serving as
the primary guide for faith and practice. Rejection of Roman Catholicism: Protestant orthodoxy typically rejected key
doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, such as the authority of the Pope, the efficacy of sacraments
like transubstantiation, and the veneration of saints and relics. Emphasis on Sovereignty of God: Protestant
orthodoxy often stressed the sovereignty of God in salvation, emphasizing doctrines such as predestination and
election. God's grace was seen as the sole basis for salvation, with human beings unable to earn or merit their
salvation through good works. Creedal Affirmation: Many Protestant orthodox traditions adhered to historic creeds
and confessions, such as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. These
documents provided a standard of orthodoxy and served as doctrinal benchmarks for theological unity. Theological
Education and Scholarship: Protestant orthodoxy fostered theological education and scholarship to train clergy and
defend orthodox beliefs against theological challenges. Universities and seminaries were established to educate
ministers in theology, biblical studies, and church history. Polemical Engagement: Protestant orthodoxy engaged in
polemical debates with other theological traditions, including Roman Catholicism, Anabaptism, and various forms of
Protestant dissent. This included written works, public debates, and formal disputations aimed at defending orthodox
beliefs and refuting theological errors. Continuity with Reformation Principles: Despite some developments and
refinements, Protestant orthodoxy generally maintained continuity with the theological principles and emphases of
the Reformation, such as sola scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), and sola gratia (grace alone).

Overall, Protestant orthodoxy sought to preserve and promote orthodox Protestant beliefs in the face of theological
challenges and divisions, contributing to the theological coherence and stability of Protestant Christianity during this
period.

Pietism is a movement within Christianity that emphasizes personal devotion, heartfelt religious experience, and
practical Christian living. It emerged in the late 17th century as a reaction against formalism and intellectualism in the
church. Pietists emphasized the importance of individual spiritual growth, active participation in Christian
communities, and a personal relationship with God.

Early Pietists like Spencer, Francke, and Bengel were passionate about renewal, reform, and spreading the message of
Christianity. They believed in approaching the Bible through study, prayer, openness to the Holy Spirit, and preferably
as a community rather than as individuals. Johann A. Bengel's work in 1734 laid the foundation for textual criticism.
Later Pietists, such as John and Charles Wesley in the 18th century, focused on practical aspects of life rather than
relying solely on reason. They believed that understanding the Bible came from both the heart and the mind. John
Wesley suggested interpreting unclear passages of the Bible in light of clearer ones.

In terms of hermeneutics, Pietism contributed by promoting a more personal and experiential approach to
interpreting the Bible. Pietists believed that the Bible should be read not just for intellectual understanding, but also
for personal spiritual growth and transformation. They encouraged believers to engage with the text through prayer,
meditation, and openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Pietism also emphasized the importance of interpreting
the Bible in the context of Christian community, where believers could support and learn from one another in their
spiritual journeys.

Overall, Pietism's focus on personal devotion and experiential faith helped to enrich and deepen the hermeneutical
approach to the Bible, emphasizing the importance of both intellectual understanding and heartfelt engagement
with the text.

The Enlightenment Period: Rationalism, Romanticism, Empiricism, Existentialism

From the 15th century onwards, there was a new wave of intellectual activity. The Renaissance brought about a
revival of interest in ancient literature, art, and theology. The study of theology became particularly significant during
this time. Additionally, the rise of philosophy as a separate field from theology prompted a re-evaluation of how the
Bible was understood and interpreted. Another important factor was Protestantism's emphasis on the Bible, which
led to questioning among intellectuals.

The term "Enlightenment" originated from the German word "Aufklarung" and characterized much of the thought in
the 17th and 18th centuries. Some believe the seeds of Enlightenment in Europe were sown by thinkers like René
Descartes in the 17th century, while others credit Immanuel Kant in the 18th century for defining it further. Kant
described Enlightenment as breaking free from dependence on others and relying on one's own understanding.

This Enlightenment mindset influenced biblical interpretation and theology, as seen in the works of G.E. Lessing
(1729-1781). He oversaw the publication of critical works, such as those by H.S. Reimarus, who questioned many
traditional ideas about Jesus as depicted in the Gospels. The French Revolution in 1789 and the American War of
Independence in 1776 are also seen as events influenced by Enlightenment ideas.

Rationalism

In the 17th century, the value and significance of Scripture began to decline. In the first half of the 18th century, a
movement called rationalism became very influential. Rationalism is the belief or theory that reason and logic, rather
than tradition, revelation, or religious faith, are the primary sources of knowledge and truth. Rationalists rely on
human intellect and critical thinking to understand the world and make judgments, often questioning or rejecting
ideas that cannot be supported by evidence or logical argumentation. This period, known as the "Age of Reason" or
"Enlightenment," marked the beginning of modern hermeneutics.

During the Enlightenment, there was a shift towards a more scientific worldview, replacing the traditional hierarchical
understanding of reality with a new perspective on the cosmos and human nature. This scientific approach changed
how people understood and interpreted texts. Interpretation of texts took on a more epistemological focus with the
onset of modernity, as people began to question traditional beliefs and adopt a more critical mindset.

Although the Enlightenment influenced many, not all Christians were swayed by its ideas. Pietism, led by figures like
John Wesley, continued to emphasize personal devotion and spiritual experience, though they were in the minority.
The emergence of Romanticism also began during this period, offering an alternative to the rationalistic worldview.

The influence of liberalism began to creep into the Roman Catholic Church. The declaration of papal infallibility in
1870 encouraged conservative members of the Church to oppose liberalism. Despite some impact from modernity,
the Church largely resisted liberal influence. In 1870, at the Council of Trent, Pope Leo XIII reinforced the
authoritative interpretation of Scripture against Protestants and Rationalists. In 1943, Pope Pius XII stated in a letter
that Catholic scholars have freedom in interpreting Scripture. They must be skilled in biblical languages, focus on the
literal sense of scripture, emphasize theological and spiritual meanings, and be knowledgeable in patristic exegesis.
Romanticism

The historical period between 1760/80 — 1830/40 is usually designated as the Romantic period. Romanticism was a
cultural movement that emerged in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, characterized by an emphasis on
individualism, emotion, imagination, and nature. It arose as a reaction against the rationalism and strict societal
norms of the Enlightenment era. Romanticism celebrated human expression, intuition, and subjective experience,
often prioritizing emotion over reason. Romantic artists, writers, and thinkers sought to evoke deep emotional
responses in their audiences and often depicted themes of love, nature, and the supernatural. They rejected the
constraints of classical forms and embraced the idea of the "heroic individual" who rebelled against societal
conventions. Romanticism had a profound influence on literature, art, music, philosophy, and politics, leaving a
lasting legacy on Western culture.

In this period people sought personal freedom in a rapidly changing and diverse society. Individuals began to choose
their own religious beliefs rather than following traditional doctrines.

During this time, many influential theological writers were also renowned literary figures. Figures like J.G. Herder, J.J.
Griesbach, F. Schleiermacher, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, R.W. Emerson, and James Marsh aimed to create a Christian
message that could resonate with a skeptical society focused on science, art, and politics.

Immanuel Kant framed debates on religious identity through his philosophical works, suggesting that religion could
be justified through art and aesthetic values. Schleiermacher, for example, believed that religion originated from a
feeling of complete dependence on God rather than scientific or moral reasoning.

William Wordsworth (1770-1850) found a sense of God's presence in nature, seeing its beauty as a pathway to
holiness. P.B. Shelley (1792-1822) believed that beauty alone brings grace and truth to life's restless dreams, echoing
John Keats' (1795-1821) idea that beauty is truth, and truth beauty. Christianity could seem attractive and beautiful,
but beauty itself could easily become like a religion. The gap between the apostle (a follower of Christ) and the
aesthete (a lover of beauty) was small.

For many, Christ symbolized the highest human ideals, representing a caring presence for the universe that was not
limited to any one group. Dreams of perfect natural settings and social reforms were seen as glimpses of heaven's
ultimate goal. Romanticism was seen as the opposite of classicism, valuing imagination over reason, personal feelings
over objective truth, and introspective reflection over societal norms. The theology of the early 19th century lacked
depth and completeness, failing to fully align the mind, heart, and society.

Empiricism

Empiricism is a philosophical approach of formulating theology that emphasizes the importance of sensory
experience and observation in gaining knowledge and understanding about the world. According to empiricists,
knowledge is derived primarily from direct observation, experimentation, and sensory perception, rather than from
innate ideas or abstract reasoning. Empiricism holds that all ideas originate from experience, and that sensory
information is the foundation of understanding reality. It emerged from various influences such as Schleiermacherian
theology, British empirical philosophies, and naturalism, as part of the wider movement of theological liberalism
within Protestantism. Empirical theologians aimed to address challenges posed by atheism and humanism by
drawing on human experience and scientific knowledge.

They used historical, critical, and systematic methods to interpret Christian theological symbols in ways that made
sense in a scientific and industrialized society. Influenced by pragmatism, they relied on empirical data from various
sources to inform their theological understanding.

Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) was a renowned thinker in the nineteenth century, often credited as the
founder of modern hermeneutics, the study of interpreting texts. He viewed hermeneutics not merely as rules for
interpreting texts, but as the art of understanding them deeply. Despite being influenced by romanticism, he didn't
fully embrace it, earning him the label of a "liberal evangelical."

Schleiermacher stressed the importance of understanding texts as their original readers would have. He believed that
the text carries both philosophical and philological aspects. According to him, understanding arises from what the
author intended to convey and what the reader comprehends. He emphasized considering various meanings,
synonyms, and symbols within a text.

Schleiermacher suggested that to truly understand a text, one must immerse oneself in its context, atmosphere, and
imagery, much like becoming an immediate reader of it. He highlighted a paradox: to understand someone, you need
to understand what they say, but you also understand them better through what they say. This idea is explained by
the hermeneutical circle, where understanding relies on prior knowledge of both human nature and the subject
matter, creating a continuous cycle of interpretation.

It's understood in two main ways. Firstly, it highlights the connection between different parts of a text and the text as
a whole. To grasp the full meaning, you need to understand both the individual parts and the overall context.
Secondly, every understanding begins with a basic grasp of what the text is about, called preliminary understanding
or pre-understanding. For example, to understand music or math, you need some prior knowledge. Schleiermacher
addresses this concept in two ways: as a circular process where understanding builds on prior knowledge, and as a
progressive spiral where understanding deepens over time.

Schleiermacher suggests two methods to achieve understanding: comparative and divinatory. Comparative involves
comparing and analyzing different parts of the text, while divinatory aims for an immediate understanding of the
author as a person. He was interested in understanding both the author and the unique features of language.

Wilhelm Dilthey was among the first to use hermeneutics in social sciences. He focused on history and believed in
understanding human life. Dilthey expanded hermeneutics to include law, social sciences, and human institutions. He
stressed the importance of history in both interpreting and being interpreted. He saw life as a way to connect
interpretation with the interpreter. Dilthey believed that understanding is like seeing oneself in others, which is
similar to Christian values. He thought that complete understanding comes later in life, similar to Jesus' words to
Peter in the Bible (John 13:7).

Shailer Mathews (1863-1941) insisted that the starting point for religion is a relationship with the universe described
by the scientist. Henry Wilson Wieman (1884-1975) maintained that God must be known as any other object in
experience, by scientific observation and reason. D. C. Macintosh (1877-1948) asserted theology as an empirical
science. He resisted the romantic subjective tendencies of earlier liberalism.

The empirical movement in American theology had its influence on many thinkers who never accepted its tenets
fully. This movement in the 1930s provided a transition to neo-orthodox trends. Empiricism was under sharp attack
from Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr.

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) introduced the existentialist interpretation. Existentialism is a philosophical and literary
movement that focuses on individual experience, freedom, and choice. It emphasizes the uniqueness and
authenticity of each person's existence and their responsibility to make meaningful choices in a seemingly indifferent
or absurd world. Existentialists often explore themes such as anxiety, alienation, and the search for meaning in life.
He and Martin Heidegger agreed that de-objectifying texts was an important way of understanding texts and bringing
out their meaning. He also underlined the preliminary or pre-understanding. According to Bultmann, there is an
existential encounter between the text and the interpreter. According to Bultmann, there is an existential encounter
between the text and the interpreter. It is human self-understanding that is taking place along with the exposition of
the text. He said the past is understood based on how we see ourselves now. So, reading a text means making a new
choice about how we understand ourselves. Understanding human life is key to understanding the text.

Bultmann concluded that for the New Testament writers their objective language was its mythological form of
expression. Hence his method of interpretation involves demythologization — the stripping away of the mythological
embellishments from the kerygma (message). Myth expresses a timeless and universal truth (objective). In order to
make the gospel speak to me now (subjective), the myth has to be interpreted in subjective terms. His own form
criticism testifies it. Of course, Hermann Gunkel pioneered it in his studies of the Hebrew Bible.

For Bultmann the only valid exegesis is an anthropological or better still, existential one, that is, it will illumine human
self-understanding (authentic existence). Therefore, theology (doctrine of God) is anthropology (doctrine of human
beings) because every statement about God is at the same time statement about human beings. Eschatology for
Bultmann is not the distant future, but the new possibility for human authentic existence now, in the present. For
Bultmann, the Hebrew Bible does not contain the kerygma (message of the gospel), but it is a pointer to Christ. The
kerygma is not an old message, but it is the continual encounter of the Christ-event as an existential reality now with
human beings.

Here below is an example of Bultmann’s interpretation of demythologization. He writes, “Faith in the resurrection is
really the same thing as faith in the saving efficacy of the cross”. “Christ the crucified one encounters us in the word
of proclamation and nowhere else”. For Bultmann, understanding and believing in the resurrection mean “being
raised with Christ’’. Some jibe that for Bultmann and his followers the resurrection occurs only at 11 on Sunday
mornings, when the word of God is preached. Bultmann’s demythologization is criticized by many, for they see
kerygma as the content, while mythology as the framework. Moreover, faith in Jesus Christ is projected by them into
the Jesus of history. David Cairns points out that there is a radical pulling apart of faith from the historical in
Bultmann.

Some Other approaches

Karl Barth’s (1886-1968) early period of theology may be called the theology of dialectics or crisis, in which he
stressed divine transcendence. As one cannot speak of such a God, divine revelation addresses both a yes of grace
and a no of judgment, Crisis or otherness, in a dialectical form. He was skeptical of the attempts of Bultmann in trying
to reduce Jesus as one providing a new self-understanding to human beings. For Barth, Jesus was God’s revelation,
God’s New Man for human beings. The historical study can be a tool for Christology. While for Bultmann, the
individual is more important, for Barth, the community of faith or the church is more important. In Barth’s
theological exegesis, one may get the impression that he sometimes pulls the biblical material out of its context and
inserts them into pre-determined theological scheme (eisegesis). He may be called the first representative of the
modern hermeneutic as his hermeneutic arose out of the context of the First World War and the collapse of
liberalism. Barth uses the expression transparency in hermeneutics. By this he means: direct and immediate
appropriation of the subject-matter of Scripture; and to be illumined or enlightened by the subject matter. Thus, in
interpretation there takes place an illumination of the text as well as of the exegete. For example, Barth would say
that Paul of the first century spoke directly to Calvin of the 16th century. Barth’s theological exegesis is seen in his
great work called Church Dogmatics. For Barth, Bible becomes the Word of God for us today. His theology is
essentially Christological and God makes himself known to the exegete directly now.

He says that people turn to the Bible because they are disillusioned with psychology and history. Hence Barth’s
commentaries have little time for human sciences. As the Second World War progressed, his doctrine of God became
more Trinitarian, but he did not leave the Christological aspects behind. He cautioned against the blind following of
historical critical methods. He saw belief as a process initiated by God. He believed that God can speak to us through
any means; God can be known only through God. “Understanding” comes from God.

New Hermeneutic.

This developed in the 1950s and the 1960s in close association with the “new quest” of the historical Jesus and it
could also be regarded as a response to Bultmann’s method of interpretation. It reflects a new understanding of the
function and nature of language advocated by European linguists in the light of their linguistic and phenomenological
studies. It also elucidates the poetic aspects of language. Language is seen as being loaded with existence and not
just as that which describes existence. The New Hermeneutic regards New Testament texts just like any other texts
composed of human language and hence culturally conditioned. It means that the biblical text is already an
interpretation of the Word of God.

The New Hermeneutic also propounds that it is not the Word of God that is interpreted, but it is the Word of God
that interprets. Since the Word of God is not a subject of human scrutiny, it is more correct to say that the Word of
God reaches out and takes hold of the interpretation. With this new insight in interpretation, the traditional
understanding of the relation between interpretation and the text is reversed. Therefore, instead of “hermeneutics”
(human attempts in interpretation), it is now “hermeneutic”.

Traditional hermeneutics were concerned with the theory and methods of interpretation where the text was the
object of interpretation, and the interpreter was the subject. The New Hermeneutic is concerned with God’s Word
coming in and through the text where the Word of God is the subject. Here even the text is a hermeneutical tool
which leads to an encounter with the substance of the text. Language and the use of language in the text become key
factors in the New Hermeneutic. Likewise, the “world” in which the language is expressed also becomes a normative
factor in it. Hence there is a vital link between the text - the thought world of the text, and the interpreter.

In a new generation and situation, the old language means something different. The new situation is separated from
the original situation by many centuries or even millenniums. Hence it is very difficult to regain the original intentions
and meaning of the text. The interpreter must be very careful that s/he does substitute a contemporary meaning that
was not intended in the original. J. M. Robinson says that the language in which the early Christian kerygma was
stated soon became part of the kerygma itself, as the early church thought that the Kerygma cannot be expressed in
those very words themselves. So the task of the interpreter is to see how adequately the original linguistic form is an
expression of the kerygma and whether it still conveys the kerygmatic intention.

Important Exponents

Gerhard Ebeling (1912-2001): According to Ebeling, to understand a language of a text, interpretation must involve
not merely an understanding of the single words and their general significance, but a fuller comprehension of the
whole life of the community as it is reflected in those words of the text. In other words, the languages of the text,
and world or context of language have to be taken together in interpretation. Ebeling uses the expression ‘’word-
event” as the key word when he talks about the role of human language in interpretation. When the word is spoken
to a person, it becomes an event. Ebeling says that revelation of God happens into history through preaching and
hearing.

Ernst Fuchs (1903-83): E. Fuchs uses the expression “speech-event’’. For him, Jesus as the “language-event” functions
not so much to announce and disclose some object of belief, but it is to tell us about the right time (Kairos). Jesus’
preaching is the announcement of the new time of the kingdom of God. Therefore, Fuchs emphasizes that language
is not to be understood as objectification of events but rather as what language announces. Jesus spoke the language
of grace. It was the most decisive speech for him. For Fuchs the particular language is the “perfect language”.
Language becomes event for Fuchs when language becomes more than just talk and when language is understood as
the genuine disclosure and revelation of meaning, and when language itself becomes event in the sense that it either
creates the word or destroys it.

Evaluation: Since the New Hermeneutic holds that the word or text itself is interpretation, it may be said that what
happens in the eventful, hermeneutical situation is that the original situation is revitalized and revisited, and re-
voiced. The New Hermeneutic is one of the best formulated attempts to hear the original dimensions of expressions
of antiquity.

The major reaction to the New Hermeneutic was expressed by the German “Theology as History School” centered on
Ww. Pannenberg. The New Hermeneutic is pointed out as highly individualistic in its approach. Besides, it does not
emphasize human values and social structures. There is lack of emphasis on social responsibilities and the social
context of theology. Above all, New Hermeneutic is pointed out as including non-theological hermeneutical theory of
contemporary literary criticism and applying it straight to biblical interpretation. But as Ebeling says, “A perfect
hermeneutic remains an eschatological entity”.