Paranoia. Theology.

Those two words are taken from a conversation in China Miéville's latest book, Kraken. They constitute one character's response to the question, "What is it you're doing?"

That question, in turn, is asked based on what the character appears to be doing, which is the application of a rather recondite 'reconstitutive intelligence', splicing together bits of information and memes into some sort of sensible structure. It sounds rather confusing, doesn't it?

But that is exactly what we do when we apply hermeneutic skills to a religious text. It is a kind of paranoia-driven desire to find meaning, under the assumption that there is a meaning to be found. We bend our apparently considerable intelligence (think of the thousands of scholars in many venerable religious traditions, obviously somewhat talented in the cognitive department, many of whom also with talents outside and apart from theology) to the manufacture of sense from what ought not, by the terms of the world, to make sense.

The texts themselves contain lines about how the supernatural authority or enlightened person behind them is impossible to comprehend for most (or all) mortals, and yet also that the text is from this being's deepest thoughts. Logically, then, most if not all of the text should be incomprehensible to the rest of us.

And yet, our fundamental assumption is that meaning can be gleaned through the simple application of some commonsensical skills and heuristics. Why is that so? Why should we assume this?

If the supernatural source supposedly has made the incomprehensible comprehensible, then it has diminished its own authority; it has 'dumbed down' the ineffable and unknowable. Most texts therefore strike a balance between what is obvious and what is mysterious.

It is a balance, however, that most people don't seem to think about very much. Either blood is symbolic or it is actual; it cannot be both and it cannot be neither and it cannot be part one and part the other. Either birds are birds or they represent the devil or the temptation of mankind or the salvation thereof. And so on.

We twist ourselves up in knots by attempting to fix meaning in things which shouldn't be fixed in meaning or cannot be fixed in meaning. When Jesus explains a parable, that's fine — it's his right, since he is divine. When we explain a parable that has no stated meaning, how do we know we are right?

The Tax-Collector's Gospel

It is some accident of history, if such are the narratives you believe in, that the first gospel of Jesus Christ is the one attributed to one Matthew, a tax-collector by profession. About thirteen years ago, I remember preaching about what this Matthew said about what his master said not. Here is what I found when I was reading up for it:

By taking a quick look at the verses which are designated to be Matthew 5:17, 9:13, 10:34, and 20:28, we learn that Jesus’ own words tell us about why He did not come, before he tells us why He did.

• “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.”
• “But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
• “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
• “...the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

If you read these lines, and the context in which Matthew embedded them, the conclusion is inescapable. The Jesus many Christians think about is not the Jesus that the Christian Bible actually says he is. You have to tread very carefully indeed, to avoid the many traps that a person might fall into while making odd claims about Jesus.

For Matthew was a tax-collector, a professional at the art of extracting coinage from those who sought to hide it. He knew what words meant, and kept his meaning plain. If you trust the integrity of his text, you should read Matthew 10 before you talk about the Great Commission (a phrase not found in the original text) or anything else which might stir you to action in the world around you.

Thirteen years later, I have to remind myself about such things again.

24

Hermeneutics is the discipline of interpreting a text. Specifically, it is most often used to mean the discipline of interpreting the Bible. The general principles make a lot of sense though for many texts, and I reproduce them below.

Here are 24 hermeneutic rules for interpreting the Bible, taken from A Layman’s Guide to Interpreting the Bible (pp17-91), by Walter Henrichsen. This is an orthodox Christian view, and from other perspectives may seem a bit self-serving – but this is a list of rules for Christians to interpret Christian scriptures. It doesn't work in its raw form for other texts or creeds.

General

1. Work from the assumption that the Bible is authoritative.
2. The Bible best interprets itself; Scripture best explains Scripture.
3. Saving faith and the Holy Spirit are necessary for us to understand and properly interpret the Scriptures.
4. Interpret personal experience in the light of Scripture and not Scripture in the light of personal experience.
5. Biblical examples are authoritative only when supported by a command.
6. The primary purpose of the Bible is to change our lives, not increase our knowledge.
7. Each Christian has the right and responsibility to investigate and interpret the Word of God for himself.
8. Church history is important but not decisive in the interpretation of Scripture.
9. The promises of God throughout the Bible are available to the Holy Spirit for the believers of every generaation.

Grammatical

10. Scripture has only one meaning and should be taken literally (but see below).
11. Interpret words in harmony with their meaning in the times of the author.
12. Interpret a word in relation to its sentence and context.
13. Interpret a passage in harmony with its context.
14. When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement may be considered figurative.
15. When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement may be considered figurative.
16. The principal parts and figures of a parable represent certain realities. Consider only these principal parts and figures when drawing conclusions.
17. Interpret the words of the prophets in their usual, literal and historical sense, unless the context in which they are fulfilled clearly indicates they have a symbolic meaning. Their fulfilment may be in installments, each fulfilment being a pledge of that which is to follow.

Historical

18. Since Scripture originated in an historical context, it can be understood only in the light of Biblical history.
19. Though God’s revelation in the Scriptures is progressive, both Old and New Testaments are essential parts of this revelation and form a unit.
20. Historical facts or events become symbols of spiritual truth only if the Scriptures so designate them.

Theological

21. You must understand the Bible grammatically before you understand it theologically.
22. A doctrine cannot be considered Biblical unless it sums up and includes all that the Scriptures say about it.
23. When two doctrines taught in the Bible appear to be contradictory, accept both as Scriptural in the confident belief that they resolve themselves into a higher unity.
24. A teaching merely implied in the Scriptures may be considered Biblical when a comparison of related passages supports it.

=====

There are few things more distressing than to see people quote Scripture out of context. Take for example the commonplace use of Jeremiah 29:11 at Christian weddings. That verse says, "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Yes, it sounds good, especially with its context removed. Reading verse 10 before it should be sufficient warning: This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place." In other words, it's all about captivity and exile for 70 years before the good part begins. Hardly what you really want in a marriage...