Introduction
The question of whether exegesis without presuppositions is possible is a topic that has been discussed and debated within the field of biblical studies and hermeneutics. Scholars have explored the challenges of achieving complete neutrality and objectivity in interpreting ancient texts. While it’s challenging to provide definitive references that claim complete presupposition-free exegesis is possible, scholars often address the issue within broader discussions on hermeneutics and interpretation.
Bultmann was deeply influenced by existentialist thought, especially the works of philosophers like Martin Heidegger. He approached biblical interpretation with a focus on demythologization, aiming to strip away what he considered mythological elements from the biblical texts to reveal their existential significance for contemporary readers. Bultmann did not believe in the possibility of achieving exegesis without presuppositions in the sense of complete objectivity. Instead, he advocated for a critical engagement with the text that acknowledges the interpreter’s existential concerns and focuses on revealing the existential message of the biblical texts for contemporary individuals. Bultmann’s approach highlights the dynamic interplay between the interpreter’s faith, existential questions, and the task of uncovering the historical meaning of the biblical texts.
Hirsch discusses the concept of ‘meaning’ and the challenge of achieving objective interpretation. He argues for a concept of validity in interpretation that involves uncovering the author’s intended meaning, acknowledging the role of the reader’s assumptions. Hans-Georg Gadamer addresses the nature of understanding and interpretation. He emphasizes the fusion of horizons between the reader and the text, recognizing that interpreters always bring their own historical and cultural perspectives to the process. Ricceur explores the idea of distanciation in interpretation, suggesting that interpreters need to create a distance from their presuppositions to understand the meaning of the text more objectively. However, he acknowledges that complete objectivity may be an unattainable ideal.
Concerning the challenges of achieving objectivity in interpretation and the role of presuppositions, Thiselton advocates for a hermeneutics of trust that recognizes the importance of both the text and the interpreter’s perspective. Porter and Robinson provide an introduction to hermeneutics, exploring issues related to interpretation and presuppositions. They discuss the necessity of acknowledging one’s own presuppositions while engaging in responsible interpretation. Bartholomew and Goheen explore the grand narrative of the Bible and the challenges of interpreting Scripture. They discuss the importance of recognizing one’s cultural presuppositions and the need for a holistic approach to biblical interpretation.
It’s important to note that while these scholars discuss the challenges of achieving completely presupposition-free interpretation, many emphasize the importance of self-awareness, critical reflection, and engagement with various perspectives to enhance the objectivity of biblical exegesis. The field of biblical studies continues to evolve, and discussions on interpretation and presuppositions remain central to ongoing scholarship.
Achieving an Absolutely Presupposition-Free Exegesis
Exegesis, the critical interpretation or explanation of a text, is a complex task that involves analysing the text within its historical, cultural, and linguistic context to understand its original meaning. The concept of conducting exegesis without presuppositions—preconceived beliefs or assumptions—poses a theoretical challenge because every interpreter brings some level of preunderstanding to the process. However, scholars strive for what is called ‘critical objectivity’ or an “open-minded” approach to minimize the influence of presuppositions. Here are some considerations:
- Recognizing Presuppositions: Exegetes aim to be aware of their own presuppositions, acknowledging their potential impact on the interpretation. Recognizing biases is the first step toward minimizing their influence.
Identifying biases serves as the initial stage in mitigating the impact of presuppositions on the process of interpretation” underscores the importance of self-awareness and critical reflection in the task of interpreting texts in biblical studies. Recognizing one’s biases requires a conscious and honest acknowledgment of personal perspectives, beliefs, and potential predispositions that may influence the interpretation of a text. This self-awareness is a foundational aspect of scholarly integrity and intellectual honesty.
Beyond mere recognition, critical reflection involves a deeper analysis of how personal biases might shape the interpretation. This includes examining the cultural, religious, or ideological influences that could impact one’s understanding of the text. It also involves questioning assumptions and considering alternative perspectives.
The ultimate goal is to minimize the impact of presuppositions on the interpretative process. While complete neutrality may be an unattainable ideal, the conscientious interpreter strives to approach the text with openness and a willingness to let the evidence within the text and its historical context guide the interpretation.
In summary, the recognition of biases as the initial stage in mitigating the impact of presuppositions reflects a commitment to rigorous and conscientious scholarship. It acknowledges the inevitability of biases while emphasizing the importance of self-awareness, critical reflection, and a dedication to minimizing the undue influence of personal perspectives on the interpretative process.
- Critical Objectivity: While complete neutrality might be unattainable, scholars strive for critical objectivity. This involves critically examining one’s assumptions and being open to adjusting interpretations based on the evidence presented in the text and its historical context.
Objectivity in interpretation is not about eliminating all perspectives but rather about minimizing the undue influence of personal biases. It involves approaching the text with a willingness to be shaped by the evidence presented within the text itself and its broader context.
- Interdisciplinary Approach: Engaging in an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates insights from history, linguistics, archaeology, and other relevant fields helps in mitigating the impact of narrow presuppositions.
Historical context is crucial for interpreting texts accurately. Engaging with historical disciplines allows interpreters to situate the text within its cultural, social, and political milieu, providing a richer understanding of the motivations behind certain actions, beliefs, or expressions in the text.
Linguistics plays a vital role in understanding the nuances of language used in the text. The choice of words, idioms, and grammatical structures can carry layers of meaning. A linguistic analysis helps in deciphering these nuances and avoiding misinterpretation.
Cultural anthropology contributes to the understanding of social customs, norms, and behaviours prevalent during the time the text was written. Exploring cultural aspects aids in grasping the subtleties of interpersonal relationships, societal structures, and everyday life reflected in the text.
When multiple disciplines converge on a particular interpretation, it lends credibility to the conclusions drawn. Cross-checking findings across various fields enhances the reliability of the interpretative framework and mitigates the risk of narrow or biased presuppositions.
Insights from various disciplines contribute not only to historical understanding but also to the contemporary relevance of the text. By appreciating the multifaceted aspects of a text, scholars can draw connections between ancient wisdom and modern contexts, making the interpretation more applicable.
In a nutshell, engaging in an interdisciplinary approach serves as a robust strategy for mitigating the impact of narrow presuppositions. It broadens the scholarly toolkit, encourages a holistic perspective, and facilitates a more thorough exploration of the multifaceted dimensions of the text under examination.
- Comparative Study: Comparing different translations, historical commentaries, and interpretations can provide a broader perspective, allowing interpreters to identify potential biases and enrich their understanding.
- Community of Scholars: Engaging in scholarly dialogue within a community of diverse interpreters can help identify and challenge presuppositions. This interaction fosters a more rigorous and nuanced examination of the text.
- Consulting Multiple Perspectives: Consulting a variety of perspectives, including those from different theological traditions and cultural contexts, helps prevent a narrow or overly biased interpretation.
- Contextual Analysis: Focusing on the historical and cultural context of the text aids in minimizing presuppositions by grounding the interpretation in the specific circumstances in which the text was produced.
- Semantic Analysis: A careful analysis of the semantic range of words and phrases in their original languages can help exegetes avoid imposing modern meanings onto ancient texts, reducing the influence of contemporary presuppositions.
Conclusion
While achieving a completely presupposition-free exegesis may be an ideal, it is practically challenging given the inherent subjectivity of interpretation. The goal is not to eliminate all presuppositions but to be aware of them and strive for a balanced and evidence-based interpretation. Scholars recognize that their interpretations are always provisional and subject to revision based on ongoing study and dialogue within the scholarly community.
References
Bartholomew, Craig and Goheen, Michael W. The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story, Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2014.
Bultmann, Rudolf. ‘Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?’ in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann. Trans. by Schubert M. Ogden. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960.
Filha, M. B. M., Cavalcante, J. P. R., & Batista, L. ‘The Exegesis School and the Free Scientific Research: Legal Hermeneutic Reflexes in Brazil (1873 to 1887)’, Brazilian Journal of Development, 2022.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Hermeneutics, Religion, and Ethics, Trans. Weinsheimer, Joel. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method, trans., Sheed and Ward, Ltd. New York: The Continuum Publishing Co., 1975.
Hirsch, E. D. Validity in Interpretation, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.
Marty, Paul and Romoli, Jacopo. ‘Presuppositions, Implicatures, and Contextual Equivalence’, Natural Language Semantics, 2021 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-021-09176-0> [accessed 21 December 2023].
Pitts, Andrew W. ‘Interdisciplinary New Testament Scholarship: An Introduction to the Research of Professor Stanley E. Porter’, in The Language and Literature of the New Testament, Boston: Brill Publisher, 2017.
Porter, Stanley E. and Robinson, Jason. Hermeneutics: An Introduction to Interpretive Theory, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2011.
Ricceur, Paul. ‘From Existentialism to the Philosophy of Language’, Philosophy Today. 17, 1973.
Ricceur, Paul. ‘The Task of Hermeneutics’, Philosophy Today, 17, 1973.
Richardson, F. ‘Philosophical Hermeneutics’. Routledge International Handbook of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, Critiques, Problems, and Alternatives to Psychological Ideas, Howick Place: Routledge Publisher, 2023. <https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781003036517-8> [accessed 21 December 2023]
Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1997.
