[Book Review] Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:24 pm
Below is a book review I wrote for our library newsletter. I thought it may be of interest for the site, given the subject matter. Enjoy 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howe, Thomas. Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation. Foreword by Norman Geisler. Altamonte Springs, FL: Advantage Inspirational, 2004.
Thomas Howe, an LRS alumnus, professor of Bible and Biblical Languages at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and elder brother of former LRS philosophy and apologetics professor Richard Howe, has written Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation to “call into question the universal rejection of objectivity” and “to set forth a reasoned argument for objectivity in interpretation.” (p. xiv) Anyone who has ever been in a discussion on the meaning of a Bible verse or passage and has heard, “Well, that's just your interpretation,” will immediately see the importance of such a study. Is there one correct interpretation of Scripture, or can the Bible—indeed, the same verse—mean one thing to one person and something completely different to another? If truth is relative, that is, if there is no such thing as absolute truth, then the latter must be true. For if there is no such thing as Truth, or if Truth cannot be known, then no one can claim that they have the true understanding of a given text. But if Truth does exist, and if it can be known, then it is possible for there to be one true meaning, and, more importantly, it is may be possible for that meaning to be known and understood.
Admittedly, many people read the same passages of Scripture and come up with different or even contradictory interpretations. Howe spends the first part of the book explaining that most scholars claim this is due to each person's presuppositions—ideas that a person holds before he or she comes to the text that influence how they interpret it. As a result, each person's interpretation will be different; it will be their interpretation in light of their situation, but it cannot be said to be the interpretation! While such a conclusion is problematic for Evangelicals, Howe shows that even most Evangelical scholars have been persuaded by this line of thought, though they try to avoid its conclusion. Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, for instance, in their Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, a standard in the field, acknowledge “an inevitable circularity in interpretation” (p. 212), which they attempt to circumvent with their now famous discussion of the hermeneutical spiral.
The entire problem, according to Howe, is a philosophical one. Whatever methodologies for biblical interpretation evangelicals like KBH propose, unless the underlying problems are addressed, it seems that objectivity in interpretation, and thus a correct interpretation, is simply impossible. Howe sets out to answer this problem by first pointing out that the entire problem is based on a self-contradiction. Namely, if all interpretation necessarily begins from certain presuppositions, what about that presupposition? Does that presupposition rest on others ad infinitium? And if all presuppositions are changeable—a central tenet for most scholars—then what about the presupposition that all presuppositions are changeable? Is it itself changeable? By this, Howe hopes to show that there are certain “properly basic” presuppositions, that is, presuppositions that are foundational and are the basis for all others and, more importantly, are common to all people. These, he argues, form the basis for the acceptance of the possibility of real objectivity in interpretation, and thus the possibility of coming to the correct interpretation of a text.
The second major feature of Howe's argument is his dismantling of the almost universally held “Representational Epistemology.” Following from the philosophy of Descartes, this view holds that what a person sees in their mind is only a representation of reality, and thus, the only thing ever really known is what the mind has produced. But if this is true, then because there is no way to get outside of one's mind to compare one's mental images with reality, there is no way to know whether or not those mental images accurately represent reality. Further, these images are formed with reference to one's various presuppositions, rendering real, objective knowledge impossible. But again, this is self-refuting, for if one can have real, objective knowledge that real, objective knowledge is impossible, one has just disproven himself.
Against, this, Howe suggests an entirely different philosophical basis from which we may reason and achieve objectivity and real knowledge. Starting from the proposition that reality exists (“Reality is that which exists, or as we have phrased it, 'That which is'”, p. 309), he argues we should ask the question, “What is that which is?” This study of reality is called metaphysics. Once a proper metaphysic has been set, one can ask “How do we know that which is?” This study of knowledge is called epistemology. From there one progresses to the field of linguistics, which asks “How do we communicate what we know?” Finally, one can ask, “How do we understand what is communicated?” This is the study of hermeneutics, that is, of interpretation.
This scheme provides a roadmap for the rest of the book. Complete with numerous illustrations, Howe lays out a philosophical system that refutes and replaces Representational Epistemology while explaining and defending the objective nature of knowledge. Further, the system he proposes, elaborated by Thomas Aquinas, has roots as far back as Aristotle and has many outstanding defenders today. The end result is a consistent philosophical system on which the work of most major hermeneutic textbooks can be firmly planted.
The field of hermeneutics in general is a fascinating study, and in many ways can be said to be the primary factor in determining one's theological positions. Whether or not a text should be taken literally or figuratively, how important culture is in interpretation, and how theology and progressive revelation are to bear on one's understanding of the text are all extremely important questions. They are the questions hermeneutics textbooks are designed to answer. But all of those questions presuppose an answer is possible. Our postmodern culture, however, is suspicious of all truth claims. The postmodern's question is not, “How do I find out what this text means?” but “How do I know this text means anything at all?” As such, Howe's book is an important one for apologists, laymen, and ministers alike. For apologists, the question of objectivity, or of the possibility of knowledge, is paramount. For laymen, the culture in which we live demands more than historical facts and word studies to back one's “opinion” on what a text means. For ministers, they must understand how to overcome the objection, “But that's just your interpretation.” It is, after all, the job of the preacher to expound, to the best of his ability and with the help of the Holy Spirit, on what the Bible really says. It does little good to explain a text properly if, at the end of the message, one's congregants only think, “Well, he has an interesting view on that passage!” Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation meets just that argument. As such, it should not be considered a hermeneutics book so much as the presupposition to the hermeneutics textbook, and thus, it should be read by everyone who wants to accurately explain what God really meant when He inspired His Word to be written.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howe, Thomas. Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation. Foreword by Norman Geisler. Altamonte Springs, FL: Advantage Inspirational, 2004.
Thomas Howe, an LRS alumnus, professor of Bible and Biblical Languages at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and elder brother of former LRS philosophy and apologetics professor Richard Howe, has written Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation to “call into question the universal rejection of objectivity” and “to set forth a reasoned argument for objectivity in interpretation.” (p. xiv) Anyone who has ever been in a discussion on the meaning of a Bible verse or passage and has heard, “Well, that's just your interpretation,” will immediately see the importance of such a study. Is there one correct interpretation of Scripture, or can the Bible—indeed, the same verse—mean one thing to one person and something completely different to another? If truth is relative, that is, if there is no such thing as absolute truth, then the latter must be true. For if there is no such thing as Truth, or if Truth cannot be known, then no one can claim that they have the true understanding of a given text. But if Truth does exist, and if it can be known, then it is possible for there to be one true meaning, and, more importantly, it is may be possible for that meaning to be known and understood.
Admittedly, many people read the same passages of Scripture and come up with different or even contradictory interpretations. Howe spends the first part of the book explaining that most scholars claim this is due to each person's presuppositions—ideas that a person holds before he or she comes to the text that influence how they interpret it. As a result, each person's interpretation will be different; it will be their interpretation in light of their situation, but it cannot be said to be the interpretation! While such a conclusion is problematic for Evangelicals, Howe shows that even most Evangelical scholars have been persuaded by this line of thought, though they try to avoid its conclusion. Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, for instance, in their Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, a standard in the field, acknowledge “an inevitable circularity in interpretation” (p. 212), which they attempt to circumvent with their now famous discussion of the hermeneutical spiral.
The entire problem, according to Howe, is a philosophical one. Whatever methodologies for biblical interpretation evangelicals like KBH propose, unless the underlying problems are addressed, it seems that objectivity in interpretation, and thus a correct interpretation, is simply impossible. Howe sets out to answer this problem by first pointing out that the entire problem is based on a self-contradiction. Namely, if all interpretation necessarily begins from certain presuppositions, what about that presupposition? Does that presupposition rest on others ad infinitium? And if all presuppositions are changeable—a central tenet for most scholars—then what about the presupposition that all presuppositions are changeable? Is it itself changeable? By this, Howe hopes to show that there are certain “properly basic” presuppositions, that is, presuppositions that are foundational and are the basis for all others and, more importantly, are common to all people. These, he argues, form the basis for the acceptance of the possibility of real objectivity in interpretation, and thus the possibility of coming to the correct interpretation of a text.
The second major feature of Howe's argument is his dismantling of the almost universally held “Representational Epistemology.” Following from the philosophy of Descartes, this view holds that what a person sees in their mind is only a representation of reality, and thus, the only thing ever really known is what the mind has produced. But if this is true, then because there is no way to get outside of one's mind to compare one's mental images with reality, there is no way to know whether or not those mental images accurately represent reality. Further, these images are formed with reference to one's various presuppositions, rendering real, objective knowledge impossible. But again, this is self-refuting, for if one can have real, objective knowledge that real, objective knowledge is impossible, one has just disproven himself.
Against, this, Howe suggests an entirely different philosophical basis from which we may reason and achieve objectivity and real knowledge. Starting from the proposition that reality exists (“Reality is that which exists, or as we have phrased it, 'That which is'”, p. 309), he argues we should ask the question, “What is that which is?” This study of reality is called metaphysics. Once a proper metaphysic has been set, one can ask “How do we know that which is?” This study of knowledge is called epistemology. From there one progresses to the field of linguistics, which asks “How do we communicate what we know?” Finally, one can ask, “How do we understand what is communicated?” This is the study of hermeneutics, that is, of interpretation.
This scheme provides a roadmap for the rest of the book. Complete with numerous illustrations, Howe lays out a philosophical system that refutes and replaces Representational Epistemology while explaining and defending the objective nature of knowledge. Further, the system he proposes, elaborated by Thomas Aquinas, has roots as far back as Aristotle and has many outstanding defenders today. The end result is a consistent philosophical system on which the work of most major hermeneutic textbooks can be firmly planted.
The field of hermeneutics in general is a fascinating study, and in many ways can be said to be the primary factor in determining one's theological positions. Whether or not a text should be taken literally or figuratively, how important culture is in interpretation, and how theology and progressive revelation are to bear on one's understanding of the text are all extremely important questions. They are the questions hermeneutics textbooks are designed to answer. But all of those questions presuppose an answer is possible. Our postmodern culture, however, is suspicious of all truth claims. The postmodern's question is not, “How do I find out what this text means?” but “How do I know this text means anything at all?” As such, Howe's book is an important one for apologists, laymen, and ministers alike. For apologists, the question of objectivity, or of the possibility of knowledge, is paramount. For laymen, the culture in which we live demands more than historical facts and word studies to back one's “opinion” on what a text means. For ministers, they must understand how to overcome the objection, “But that's just your interpretation.” It is, after all, the job of the preacher to expound, to the best of his ability and with the help of the Holy Spirit, on what the Bible really says. It does little good to explain a text properly if, at the end of the message, one's congregants only think, “Well, he has an interesting view on that passage!” Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation meets just that argument. As such, it should not be considered a hermeneutics book so much as the presupposition to the hermeneutics textbook, and thus, it should be read by everyone who wants to accurately explain what God really meant when He inspired His Word to be written.
