This document discusses Martin Heidegger's existential hermeneutic and how it leads to subjective interpretation. It examines Heidegger's emphasis on history, the darkening of the world, Greek philosophy, and the role of poetry and language. The presentation evaluates Heidegger's hermeneutic, finding it involves unfounded assumptions and is self-defeating. It also discusses Rudolf Bultmann's attempt to "demythologize" biblical texts by eliminating miracles, but finds this view is without foundation and unbiblical. Finally, it argues for the possibility of objective interpretation based on the existence of an absolute mind (God), absolute meaning, and humanity's ability to understand divine

1. NORMAN GEISLERNORMAN GEISLER
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGYSYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
ChapterTenChapterTen
““Interpretation:The Hermeneutical Precondition”Interpretation:The Hermeneutical Precondition”
PowerPoint Presentation by Mark E. Hardgrove, Ph.D.PowerPoint Presentation by Mark E. Hardgrove, Ph.D.

2. SUBJECTIVITY IN
HERMENEUTICS
 Subjectivity in Meaning (Conventionalism)
It is argued that there is no such thing as
objective meaning in a text. This is, of course,
a self-defeating argument.
 Subjectivity in the Mode of CommunicationSubjectivity in the Mode of Communication
No objective grounds exist for communicating
a revelation from God to us, from the infinite
to the finite. God cannot hold logically
opposite propositions to be true.

3. Subjectivity in
Interpretation
 Martin Heidegger argued that it is notMartin Heidegger argued that it is not
possible for finite beings to derive thepossible for finite beings to derive the
objective meaning that is objectivelyobjective meaning that is objectively
expressed in a divine revelation.expressed in a divine revelation.
 He developed an existential hermeneutic thatHe developed an existential hermeneutic that
denied objective meaning was possible.denied objective meaning was possible.
 Heidegger gave rise to a subjectiveHeidegger gave rise to a subjective
hermeneutic.hermeneutic.

4. Heidegger’s ExistentialHeidegger’s Existential
HermeneuticHermeneutic
The Four Emphases:The Four Emphases:
The first emphasis is history. We have fallen
out of Being and betrayed our true
vocation by running foolishly after this
thing and that.
The second emphasis is the darkening of the
world, a world in which we live in our
spaceships, than with our true calling,
which is to be shepherds and watcher of
Being.

5. Heidegger’s ExistentialHeidegger’s Existential
HermeneuticHermeneutic
The Four Emphases:The Four Emphases:
The third emphasis is Greek philosophy.
Heidegger argues that philosophy can only
be done properly in Greek, especially the
idea of aletheia, or unhiddenness of being
and truth. This loosening of truth from
Being that has lead to nihilism.
The fourth emphasis is poetry and language,
the means through which Heidegger
wishes to recall humankind from nihilism
to Being.

6. Examining Heidegger’s HermeneuticExamining Heidegger’s Hermeneutic
First, it involves the unfounded assumptionsFirst, it involves the unfounded assumptions
that Being is unintelligible in itself.that Being is unintelligible in itself.
Second, it is self-defeating to attempt toSecond, it is self-defeating to attempt to
express the inexpressible.express the inexpressible.
Third, language does not establish being butThird, language does not establish being but
expresses it. It does not found Being butexpresses it. It does not found Being but
reveals it to us.reveals it to us.
Fourth, his assertion against a correspondenceFourth, his assertion against a correspondence
new of truth is self-destructive.new of truth is self-destructive.

7. Examining Heidegger’s HermeneuticExamining Heidegger’s Hermeneutic
Fifth, he purports on openness to Being butFifth, he purports on openness to Being but
rejects God, who is Being—Pure Actuality.rejects God, who is Being—Pure Actuality.
Sixth, he neglects the analogical ability ofSixth, he neglects the analogical ability of
language to speak meaningfully of God,language to speak meaningfully of God,
and he rejects the descriptive ability ofand he rejects the descriptive ability of
language for its evocative dimension.language for its evocative dimension.
Seventh, he asks the right question, but rulesSeventh, he asks the right question, but rules
out an adequate answer.out an adequate answer.

8. Examining Heidegger’sExamining Heidegger’s
HermeneuticHermeneutic
Eight, he expects all readers of his books to useEight, he expects all readers of his books to use
the standard hermeneutic of searching forthe standard hermeneutic of searching for
the author’s meaning.the author’s meaning.
Ninth, etymology is not the key to the meaningNinth, etymology is not the key to the meaning
of the term.of the term.
Tenth, his hermeneutic reduces to anTenth, his hermeneutic reduces to an
unverifiable mysticism. How does one knowunverifiable mysticism. How does one know
that the “mittances” of light obtainedthat the “mittances” of light obtained
through the “pathological” poets are notthrough the “pathological” poets are not
from the angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14)?from the angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14)?

9. Derrida’s Deconstructionism
 Derrida was an atheist regarding the
existence of God and an agnostic concerning
the possibility of knowing absolute truth. He
was also antimetaphysical, claiming that no
metaphysics is possible. He believed we are
locked in our own linguistic bubble, yet he
recognized that using language to deny
metaphysics is a form of metaphysics itself.

10. Deconstruction Is Not . . .
It is not a destruction of a text, but a
reconstruction of it. It is not negation but
criticism; it is not a dismantling of a text but a
remodeling of it. Deconstructionism recreates
the text; it is not about against analysis but
against all fixed analyses, and accordingly it
claims not to be angry with the text but in live
with it. It is not against reading a text, but
opposed to not rereading it constantly for new
meanings.

11. Deconstruction Is . . .
Conventionalism: all meaning is relative.Conventionalism: all meaning is relative.
Nonreferentialism: no perfect reference.Nonreferentialism: no perfect reference.
Contextualization: all texts have different context.Contextualization: all texts have different context.
Differentialism: the unknown is the mostDifferentialism: the unknown is the most
important part of the text.important part of the text.
Linguistical Solopism: we cannot escape the limitsLinguistical Solopism: we cannot escape the limits
of language.of language.
Semantical Progressivism: endless meanings.Semantical Progressivism: endless meanings.
Fideism: always between truth and doubt.Fideism: always between truth and doubt.

12. Evaluating
Deconstructionism
First, deconstructionism is a form of
linguisticalism, which affirms that all meaning
is limited by language. However, this very
statement places itself outside the limits of
language.
Second, deconstructionism also embraces
conventionalism, contending that all meaning
is relative to our situation. If all meaning is
culturally relative, then so is that statement.

13. Evaluating
DeconstructionismThird, deconstructionism believes that the laws
of logic are dependent on language, which is
culturally relative. But the reverse is true:
Language is based on logic.
Fourth, deconstructionism’s linguisticalism is
self-defeating, for it there were no meaning
prior to language, then language could not be
learned.
Fifth, it holds that “all truth is conditioned by
one’s perspective”. If this is true, what about
that statement?

14. Evaluating
DeconstructionismSixth, there is the self-defeating nature of
Derrida’s hermeneutic. He expects his texts to
be interpreted according to what he meant by
them, which is directly contrary to how he says
texts should be interpreted.
Seventh, Derrida’s view amounts to saying that
“it is an ultimate truth that there is no ultimate
truth.”
Eighth, Derrida’s implicit defense of fideism is
self-defeating. It is like making a case for not
making a case.

15. Evaluating
Deconstructionism
Ninth, you cannot avoid the use of metaphysical
language to deny metaphysics without making
metaphysical statements.
Tenth, it is fruitless to turn to poetry to avoid
metaphysics.
Eleventh, Derrida’s argument that the birth of
the reader is the death of the author is a form
of reader imperialism.

16. Evaluating
Deconstructionism
Twelfth, there is the failure to see that the lack
of one-to-one correspondence does not
eliminate all true correspondence. True
correspondence can be one to many, one in
the same meaning can be expressed in many
ways.
Thirteenth, in deconstructionism there is a
subtle dogmatism of attempting to eliminate
dogmatic. Nothing is more dogmatic than
claiming that nothing can be known for sure.

17. Bultmann’s Hermeneutic
Bultmann’s hermeneutic begins with theBultmann’s hermeneutic begins with the
attempt to “demythologize” the text. Heattempt to “demythologize” the text. He
argues that the biblical text is filled withargues that the biblical text is filled with
myths and that to interpret the text thesemyths and that to interpret the text these
myths must be eliminated to establishmyths must be eliminated to establish
objective history.objective history.

18. Bultmann’s Argument
1. Myths are by nature more than objective
truths; they are transcendent truths of faith.
2. But what is not objective cannot be part of a
verifiable space-time world.
3. Therefore, miracles (myths) are not part of
the objective space-time world.

19. Objections to Bultmann
First, his argument is build on at least two
unproven assumptions: 1) miracles are less
than historical because they are more than
historical, 2) Miracles cannot occur in the
world without being of the world.
Second, Bultmann’s view is without foundation,
having no evidential basis. Mythological
events are unverifiable; that is they have no
evidential value.

20. Objections to Bultmann
Third, Bultmann’s view is unbiblical, being
contrary to the overwhelming evidence for
the authenticity of the New Testament
documents and the reliability of the
witnesses.
Fourth, the New Testament is not the literary
genre of mythology.

21. OBJECTIVITY IN HERMENEUTICS
The Basis of an Objective HermeneuticThe Basis of an Objective Hermeneutic
1)1) The existence of an absolute Mind (God);The existence of an absolute Mind (God);
2)2) The absolute nature of meaning;The absolute nature of meaning;
3)3) The analogy between infinite understandingThe analogy between infinite understanding
and finite understanding; andand finite understanding; and
4)4) The ability of finite minds (made in god’sThe ability of finite minds (made in god’s
image) to understand truths revealed by God.image) to understand truths revealed by God.

22. OBJECTIVITY IN HERMENEUTICS
The Existence of an Absolute MindThe Existence of an Absolute Mind
1)1) At least one finite mind exists (me) forAt least one finite mind exists (me) for
without thinking I cannot deny that I think.without thinking I cannot deny that I think.
2)2) The principle of causality demands that everyThe principle of causality demands that every
finite thing needs a cause.finite thing needs a cause.
3)3) Hence, it follows that there must be anHence, it follows that there must be an
infinite Mind that caused my finite mind,infinite Mind that caused my finite mind,
because a cause cannot give what it doesn’tbecause a cause cannot give what it doesn’t
have, and the effect cannot be greater thanhave, and the effect cannot be greater than
the cause. In infinite Mind must exist.the cause. In infinite Mind must exist.

23. OBJECTIVITY IN HERMENEUTICS
Absolute MeaningAbsolute Meaning
If there is an absolute Mind, then there must beIf there is an absolute Mind, then there must be
absolute meaning. The objective basis forabsolute meaning. The objective basis for
earning is found in the Mind of God.earning is found in the Mind of God.
Analogy and MeaningAnalogy and Meaning
Not only in the theistic God of ChristianityNot only in the theistic God of Christianity
infinitely knowledgeable, but He is alsoinfinitely knowledgeable, but He is also
omnipotent. While God knows things isomnipotent. While God knows things is
different than how man knows, what he knowsdifferent than how man knows, what he knows
is the same as what He reveals to humankind.is the same as what He reveals to humankind.

24. OBJECTIVITY IN HERMENEUTICS
The Image of God in ManThe Image of God in Man
If there is an absolute Mind, then there mustIf there is an absolute Mind, then there must
be absolute meaning. The objective basis forbe absolute meaning. The objective basis for
earning is found in the Mind of God.earning is found in the Mind of God.
Can the finite mind discover the objectiveCan the finite mind discover the objective
truth that has been objectively disclosed to it?truth that has been objectively disclosed to it?
First it is possible to know, and second, it willFirst it is possible to know, and second, it will
depend on meeting the necessary conditionsdepend on meeting the necessary conditions
for understanding this objective meaningfor understanding this objective meaning..

25. Principles of Objective HermeneuticsPrinciples of Objective Hermeneutics
 Look for the Author’s Meaning, Not theLook for the Author’s Meaning, Not the
Reader’sReader’s
 Look for the Author’s Meaning (What), Not HisLook for the Author’s Meaning (What), Not His
purpose (Why)purpose (Why)
 Look for Meaning in the Text, Not Beyond ItLook for Meaning in the Text, Not Beyond It

26. Meaning in the TextMeaning in the Text
 The meaning of the writing is not found in the
meaner; he or she is the efficient cause of the
meaning. The formal cause of meaning is in
the writing itself; what is signified is found in
the signs that signify it. Verbal meaning is
found in the very structure and grammar of
the sentences themselves. Meaning is found
in the literary text itself—not in its author or
purpose, but in its literary form. Again,
meaning is not found in individual words.

27. Meaning in Affirmation, NotMeaning in Affirmation, Not
ImplicationImplication
 Ask what the text affirms (or denies), not
what it implies. Meaning is what the text
affirms, not how it can be applied.
 There is only one meaning in a text, but there
are many implications and applications.
 In terms of meaning, the sensus unum (one
sense) view is correct; however, there is a
sensus plenior (full sense) in terms of
implication. [The book as plenum, this is
wrong, change it to plenior, p. 175.]

28. Understanding God’s General
Revelation (GR)
 The biblical basis for intelligibility of
general revelation (gr): GR is found in
creation (Ps. 19:1f.) and in conscience
(Rom. 2:12-15).
 GR in nature is objectively clear and
evident to all men, even in their fallen
state (Ps. 19:14)

29. Psalm 19:1-4, NKJV
1 The heavens1 The heavens declaredeclare the glory of God;the glory of God;
And the firmamentAnd the firmament showsshows His handiwork.His handiwork.
2 Day unto day2 Day unto day utters speechutters speech,,
And night unto nightAnd night unto night reveals knowledgereveals knowledge..
3 There is no3 There is no speechspeech nornor languagelanguage
Where theirWhere their voice is not heardvoice is not heard..
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
AndAnd their wordstheir words to the end of the world.to the end of the world.

30. Romans 2:12-15, NIV
 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish
apart from the law, and all who sin under the law
will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who
hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but
it is those who obey the law who will be declared
righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not
have the law, do by nature things required by the
law, they are a law for themselves, even though
they do not have the law, 15 since they show that
the requirements of the law are written on their
hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and
their thoughts now accusing, now even defending
them.)

31. Hermeneutical Principles forHermeneutical Principles for
Interpreting GeneralInterpreting General
RevelationRevelation The Principle of Causality: It is natural to
conclude that the gifts of life come form the
Giver of life.
 The Principle of Consistency: This is a
practical application of the law of
noncontradiction.
 The Principle of Uniformity: The use of reason
to apply deduce the outcome based on past
experience.

32. Hermeneutical Principles forHermeneutical Principles for
Interpreting GeneralInterpreting General
RevelationRevelation The Principle of Teleology: Says that every
rational agent acts for an end. Purpose can
be seen in nature, so when we see nature act
for an end, we naturally come to the
conclusion that there is an intelligent Being
behind nature. This is true also of ethical
acts. To know if an act is morally wrong we
must look for evidence of moral intention.

33. Hermeneutical Principles forHermeneutical Principles for
Interpreting GeneralInterpreting General
RevelationRevelation Other Principles of Interpreting GR
1) The principle of noncontradiction
2)The principle of identity
3) The principle of the excluded middle
4)The principle(s) of rational inference