Karelynne Gerber Ayayo and Abdur-Rahman Abou Almajd discuss The topic of Hermeneutics

Karelynne Gerber Ayayo and Abdur-Rahman Abou Almajd discuss The topic of Hermeneutics.

It is necessary to cover Hermeneutics completely so We have a fresh opportunity to reflect about Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation. At this point Professor Karelynne Ayayo isn’t  going to talk about her views on her work but talks on topics of Hermeneutics too.

Karelynne Ayayo

Associate Professor

Associate Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies

Coordinator of the Undergraduate Ministry Online Program

Co-Coordinator of the General Education Program

1:  Hermeneutics is the theory of text interpretation what about the primary theory behind classical hermeneutics?

KA:  I’m not entirely sure what you are asking here, but I’ll attempt an answer.   I would actually say that for much of history the field of hermeneutics focused heavily on biblical interpretation and was primarily interested in addressing matters related to the practice of textual interpretation.  Only very recently has the field exploded into an independent discipline that dwells in the intersection of such diverse areas of thought as theology, literature, communication, philosophy, etc. This has resulted in an expansion of hermeneutics and a greater emphasis on the theory of understanding and meaning.  Because of this great plurality of fields and the multiple trajectories that have each travels, I don’t know that it is possible to speak about a primary theory behind classical hermeneutics, although traditionally the intent has been discovery of the historical meaning intended by an author, while more recent trends invite greater participation from the reader in attempts to discover possible contemporary significances of a text.

Q2: I wonder who established the continuity of the hermeneutical tradition.

KA:  Similar to the answer above, I would say that we find a continuity of hermeneutical engagement most strongly among theologians and biblical scholars due to the simple fact that they were continually faced with the challenge of how to understand and apply an ancient text that they believed to be authoritative for their faith, but their particular hermeneutical practice varied.    Within philosophical circles there is also a continued exploration of epistemology, which leads most strongly to the field of hermeneutics, but again, I would be hard pressed to identify a continuous hermeneutical tradition within the notable thinkers or schools.

Q3:  Why do evangelical theologians reject many of the interpretive theories of Schleiermacher and other liberal theologians and groups?  Could you prove or such us some mistakes of Schleiermacher’s, for example?

KA: Allow me to highlight just two elements of Schleiermacher’s approach that many evangelical theologians would find to be objectionable. 

First, Schleiermacher elevates such things as experience and intuition as primary in the revelation of the divine and rejects the role of propositional truth or cognition.   While I would argue that the Christian faith is more than a collection of propositional truths to be believed and certainly includes a genuine, lived relationship with God, it cannot completely discount objective truth claims or historical fact.  A sampling of biblical examples support this idea.  For instance, Paul’s words in 1 Cor 15:12-19 make it clear that the real, historical resurrection is foundational to the Christian faith.  His “trustworthy saying” appears to point to the early develop of creedal statements that express central propositional truths  I think that 1 John 1:1-4 provides a nice picture of the balance that would be affirmed by evangelical theologians, with its emphasis on both factual, historical occurrences that serve as the basis for religious experience.  Similarly 1 John 4:1:1-3 provides a reminder that people are open to deception in their religious experience and its litmus test for discerning truth contains a propositional element.
 

The second and corollary idea is Schleiermacher’s renunciation of external authority.  This has tremendous implications for biblical hermeneutics and opens the door for all sorts of reader response methodologies (feminist biblical interpretation, for instance).  Evangelical theologians are likely to hold to beliefs in biblical authority, so the parting of ways from Schleiermacher happens at the stage of presuppositions about the biblical text and purpose of interpretation even before any discussions of interpretive methodology.  Evangelicals are most interested in seeking authorial intent/the meaning of the text, whereas Schleiermacher is focused on recreating the author’s experience of the divine at the time of writing.

Q4: A Misconception Cleared in the people are open to deception in their religious experience, please?

KA:  Certainly.  If we take seriously the fallen state of humanity and of this world, then we would be foolish to think anyone could be completely immune to deception with regard to religious experience or anything else in life!  When it comes to the interpretive process, this is where it can be advantageous to place ourselves fully both within the history of interpretation that explores how people before us have understood a given text and also within the global community of believers that can provide insights that might be unique to their culture and help us overcome blind spots unique to ours.

Q5: Didn’t church fail, although the church runs more than 90% of Ireland’s public schools.  Twice a day, church bells ring out resoundingly on state radio and television to remind Ireland’s devoted to recite the Angelus prayer, “Yes” vote to same-sex marriage rights represents a seismic shift in the nation’s social liberalization and challenges the Roman Catholic Church, did it?

KA:  I, myself, belong in the Protestant tradition and would align most fully with a Reformed Baptistic way of thinking, so I am no expert on Roman Catholicism.  Similarly, neither the religious history of Ireland nor its current religious environment are among my areas of research, but my inclination is to think that many of its citizens would be deemed by evangelicals as being “Christian” in name only rather than in practice and in belief. 

Although I’m not particularly qualified to speak to those matters, I will take up the topic of same-sex marriage.  I think Scripture is quite clear that God has gifted humanity with sexuality, and that He has also provided boundaries for its proper expression, that being between a man and a woman who are committed solely to each other in the covenant of marriage, a relationship that is meant to reflect the beauty of the relationship that Jesus Christ has with His Church (Ephesians 5:21-33).  Biblically speaking, God created marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman.  Even though people have departed from that standard in various ways and at various times throughout history (for instance, the frequent records of polygamy by even central figures in the biblical narrative), such variants have never been approved by God and are frequently the cause of great harm to the people and societies involved.

With regard to “same-sex marriage,” then, even the nomenclature is a departure from the biblical definition.  While a democratic nation (which is certainly not a theocracy) can use its political practices to legalize such an arrangement and provide associated privileges, I am saddened that it is being called marriage, and I am dismayed to see people celebrating sinful sexual behavior.

Q6: While the church’s official theology now appears to be generally in the tradition of evangelical Christianity, certain SDA claims and unique doctrines continue to raise questions, why?

KA:  I’m not sure that I would agree that “the church’s official theology now appears to be generally in the tradition of evangelical Christianity.”  I do think that the statistics show that the mainline/liberal denominations have been shrinking consistently in recent decades, but my understanding is that the most significant global growth has been within Pentecostalism. 

Nonetheless, as one of my favorite preachers (Alistair Begg) likes to remind his listeners, when it comes to interpreting the Bible, we should remember that the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.  There will always be groups on the fringes who latch on to a particular verse or a select topic and give it greater attention than it deserves when placed in the canonical context of the entire biblical metanarrative.  While on the one hand I applaud the desire to investigate fully the things that are revealed in Scripture, I think this tendency needs to be balanced with a reminder that not everything has been revealed to the depth or level that we might like, and we are wise to maintain a healthy humility in treading in those more obscure areas.

Q7:  Who is the father of biblical hermeneutics in modern hermeneutics?

KA: It truly depends which branch of hermeneutics you have in mind.  I would offer the following correlations between hermeneutical movements/approaches and their proponents:

Authorial intent: Hirsch

Romanticism: Schleiermacher

Reader Response:  Gadamer  [subset: feminist hermeneutics: Schussler-Fiorenza]

Deconstructionism: Derrida

Q8: It is known that all hermeneutics are from a particular perspective and mine are no exception. NO hermeneutics are neutral; no reading is innocent.

KA:  It is true that no reader is a blank slate.  We all come with our own preunderstandings and backgrounds.  The question is whether (or to what extent) these backgrounds are validly embraced and seen as a strength in the interpretive process. 

I would argue that the best interpreters are those who have a high level of self-awareness about their own preunderstandings and perspectives and who seek to align their preunderstandings with those of the biblical authors as much as possible.  This is a place where interpreters can benefit from the larger interpretive community.  Looking at how texts have been interpreted historically, and drawing on a diverse, global body of contemporary voices can help the interpreter to identify and address his/her own interpretive blind spots.

Q6: Although Schleiermacher said hermeneutics never stands still and are never finished, evangelical theologians reject many of the interpretive theories of Schleiermacher, could you explain why?

KA:  See my comments about Schleiermacher above.

Q9:  As a path to resolving contemporary Jewish/Muslim tensions.  Identifying divergent treatments of Ishmael and Hagar, Bridge exposes the Yahwist as condemnatory but finds that the Priestly/Elohist sources maintain a place for cherishing and blessing Ishmael in addition to Isaac.  Could you elaborate on that please?

KA:  Sure.  This question is picking up on a portion of my review of Steven Bridge’s Getting the Old Testament when I am summarizing his ideas.  In chapter 4 of that book, Bridge takes up the texts of Genesis 12-22 and concludes that it is not as straightforward as some might claim.  He observes what he believes to be tensions, internal duplications, and/or contradictions within the narrative, and embracing the Documentary Hypothesis with regard to authorship of the Pentateuch, he posits diverse authorship traditions as a means to explaining the origin of the contradictory claims.  In particular he argues that Genesis 16:1-14, which he labels as a product of the Yahwist author, presents “A negative portrayal of the origin and reputation of the Ishmaelites, the predecessors of modern-day Arab Muslims.  According to it, they are destined for nothing but conflict in their relationships with their Semitic relatives, the modern-day Jewish people.  Moreover, this tradition lays the blame for such conflict squarely upon the shoulders of Ishmael’s progeny” (Bridge, Getting the Old Testament, p. 63).  In contrast, Genesis 21:8-21, which he claims comes from the Elohist’s hand, “depicts Hagar much more sympathetically.  She is no longer the brazen, headstrong slave but the pitiable victim of unjust circumstances.  Both Abraham and God demonstrate great concern not only for her welfare but also for that of her son, Ishmael” (Bridge, Getting the Old Testament, p. 65).

Q10:  “A negative portrayal of the origin and reputation of the Ishmaelites, the predecessors of modern-day Arab Muslims.  How can should be treated to be in true peace, God promised Abraham that His blessing should be upon Ishmael,” Ishmael’s cry shall be heard and a great nation shall come forth.  Remember Ishmael too comes from Abraham’s seed!” Genesis 17:20, 25 - And as for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold. I will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly.  He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.  What would you add?

KA:  I would simply affirm that the text of Genesis does not seem to harbor any particular ill-will toward Ishmael and affirms him as blessed by the Lord while also distinguishing him from the line of Isaac (the child born within the marriage covenant) through whom the Lord will reaffirm the covenant that he made with Abraham (Genesis 17:18-21).  It also records that Ishmael was the father of twelve tribes (Genesis 25:15) and it indicates that Ishmael’s many descendants found themselves living in hostility with those around them (Genesis 25:18), a statement that could arguably apply to just about all of the tribes (including Israel) living in the Ancient Near East during those times.

Q11:  What are eight general principles though to reflect the prevailing ideology of their authors and cultures?

KA:  I’m not sure I understand the question.  Are you asking about biblical authors, evangelical theologians/interpreters, biblical interpreters from all different perspectives, or something else?

Q12: Yes, I’m asking about biblical authors and why there are many different kinds of books?

KA:  I can’t be certain why God thought it good to include such a variety with the canonical scriptures, but I find it to be a blessing that there are texts that can appeal to many different aspects of the human experience.  For instance, the New Testament epistles are strongly (although not exclusively) propositional and serve as a wonderful resource for explicit Christian doctrine.  The many narratives provide a glimpse into both the failures and successes of the covenant community and its individuals ovare a broad range of times and places, and when read as a whole they highlight God’s consistent presence and working out of His purposes in His way.  The wisdom literature speaks to the importance of applied truth and the fact that godly living is a high calling.  The psalms model how one might speak to God in a combination of honesty and faith, even in the worst of times.  There is certainly valuable instruction to be gained by all of it as well as unique hermeneutical challenges that go along with each genre.

Abdur-Rahman: Thank you very much.