I'm beginning to read Craig Keener's The Historical Jesus of the Gospels: Jesus in Historical Context. In the Introduction Craig makes some methodological points, such as this one: "no one is free from assumptions, and... the presuppositions of skeptics are no more value-free than those of believers." (xxxi)
I agree. Failure to recognize this is seen in fundamentalist hermeneutics as well as a skeptical fundamentalism that is often a reaction against one's fundamentalist Christian upbringing. The Jesus-skeptic who thinks he is unbiased is hermeneutically just as narrow-minded as the fundamentalist hermeneutic he criticizes. As one who was not discipled in such anachronistic ways I see "value-free" discussions as essentially misguided when it comes to interpretation theory.
I'm looking forward to getting into Craig's Jesus scholarship!
2 comments:
What would Keener, or you for that matter, say the skeptic does value (i.e., doubt, critical thinking, etc.)?
Is there no value to critical thinking in interpretation? Is the assumption of the skeptic that his doubt will lead to knowledge?
I'm curious what you think...
Hi Kerrin - thank you for responding. I am not sure what you are here asking.
"Hermeneutics," as in "philosophical hermeneutics," is about "intepretation," not only of texts, but of anything that is to-be-inter-preted, or that simply gets interpreted. In this sense "interpretation" is always happening, especially and obviously during our waking hours.
One does not bring a "blank slate" to the mostly "preunderstood" act of interpretation. Most interpretive activity is prethematic, pre-understood, non-reflected-upon. In THAT sense hermeneutic activity is not value-free.
I think you are equivocating in your use of the word "value." Hermeneutical studies are, of course, to be valued. The hermeneutical act, in itself, is value-laden, not value-free.
Post a Comment