Equipping the Saints Week 53/ Hermeneutics Week 11: Using Lexical and reference tools

Sometimes in the course of Biblical study, it is necessary for contemporary people to consult various reference works. This is because the modern audience is far removed culturally and linguistically (language orientation) from the original audiences. Various types of reference works have been produced to help bridge this gap.

Because these works do not carry canonical authority that is found in the Scripture, the use of these poses a challenge to interpretation. I shall list various types of reference work, starting from the least authoritative to the most authoritative.

Secular Knowledge Base

The least authoritative references are works from secular academic disciplines. While these works carry great authority in the respective secular disciplines; they are not authoritative for Bible interpretation, neither do they carry as high an authority as the Bible as the arbiter of truth.

Sometimes knowledge from secular disciplines can be helpful in interpretation. When the debate started over the relationship between predestination and freewill amongst the early Calvinists and Arminians, the prevailing cosmology or meta-narrative understood eternity as an infinite distance on a timeline and inside a single timeline. In this view, the foreknowledge of God is often described as God “looking down the corridor of time.” If God lives within time and He can only look down the corridor of time to know a singular future, then foreknowledge certainly means fore-ordination – and no possibility of free will. Arminians found the moral implications of no free will unacceptable and rejected this conclusion. The Medieval cosmology left Calvinists and Arminians stuck in their divide.

Modern developments in cosmology in both philosophy and science, however, do not view time as not a single line, but as having an almost infinite number of branches. Each branch represents a possible choice. Eternity is understood as being both outside of time and enveloping time. This cosmology allows for free choices. The time-stream is like an open book or Web page hypertext to God. God can click anywhere He wants on the time-stream. In this cosmology, predestination is simply a matter of God drawing a time line through whatever combination of choices suits His purposes.

While such works can be helpful in Bible interpretation, the interpreter must be careful not to impose secular perspectives that are alien to both the Christian worldview and the text upon the text. This frequently happen in interpreting Genesis 1-2. Many interpreters feel pressure to make their interpretation fit the prevailing evolutionary narrative and read secular so-called science into the narrative.

Commentaries

Commentaries can be extremely useful in gaining the perspective of others. Seeing how others view the Scriptures can help us avoid skewing interpretation to fit selfish biases; this helps to avoid the fallacy of confirmation bias where the interpreter cherry picks facts that confirm his own biases.

Commentaries, however, carry low authority precisely they are largely perspective and opinion oriented. They tend to be heavy on opinion. While many commentaries use good hermeneutics and good exegesis, they are the [usually?] informed opinions of human beings.  The authority of these commentaries is far less than that of Scripture.

Historical narrative

History narrative can be a good source of information about historical persons, trends, and events contemporary to persons and events found in the Biblical narrative. Reading such history can fill in gaps in our knowledge of historical events portrayed in the Biblical narrative.

However, history book suffers in they usually presented as a narrative. As such both the facts chosen and how they are used to construct the story can be a reflection of the biases of the historian presenting the narrative. History books also suffer from the limitations of the methods of historical inquiry. History does not present itself as a well constructed narrative. Historians must piece together numerous artifacts and manuscripts. This includes making judgments about the authenticity of evidence discovered. Not every artifacts and manuscript is what it purports to be. While some highly intelligent minds have constructed for us some very good histories, professional historians are by no means infallible; their authority is inferior to that of Scripture.

Historical references

Historical references generally have somewhat more authority than historical narrative because the narrative, with its biases, has been filtered out. Historical references are focused more concisely on factual information and less on how it is woven into narrative. Such references are good sources for researching the cultural context of a given historical situation.

Historical references also suffer from the limitations on the historical method. As such, while historical references carry greater authority than historical narrative, their authority is less than that of Scripture.

Lexicons, concordances, and Bible dictionaries

These are the most authoritative extra-Biblical resources. These tools allow the interpreter to dig deeper into the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words that are in the original texts. The resources will list standard definitions of words, sometimes  including with them definitions examples of usage.

Week 53 Questions

1 Why is it sometimes necessary to use reference works?

2  What are some reference works?

3 Why are works in the secular knowledge base particularly risky?

4 What is the risk of using works from secular knowledge base, commentaries, and  historical narrative?

5 What is the most reliable  extra-Biblical reference source?

Equipping the Saints Week 54/ Hermeneutics Week 12: Preservation of the Message

Last week/chapter, I wrote that Lexicographical - dictionary resources are the most authoritative extra-Biblical resources. While these resources are very reliable, they are not inspired. This raises the question of how God preserved his Message.

Can God preserve His message using human language even if our knowledge of that language is less than infallible? The answer is absolutely yes. To understand why the limitations of human language do not limit God, we should understand how God address these epistemological limits to human knowledge. This issue is addressed in 1 Corinthians 13:9-12, which describes current limits of human epistemology.

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.   10  But when that which is perfect [complete]is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.   11  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.   12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

- 1 Corinthians  13:9-12 

This passage says that we have partial knowledge of the things of God. This makes sense, as God is infinite and humans are finite. Humanity, in the current mortal flesh, cannot grasp exhaustively the knowledge of God in both its breadth and depth. Communication between an infinite person and finite persons created in the image of the infinite person is possible because the finite person has the same categories as the Infinite Person. The finite person, however, has neither the storage capacity and bandwidth to store all information, nor the infallibility to guarantee integrity of the data; The Infinite Person is not only able to do those things, but is able to compensate for the weaknesses of the finite person in the communication process. Communication between the Infinite Person and the finite person involves a tradeoff: Completeness comes at the price of expressiveness and precision. Precise expressiveness comes at the price of completeness.

God chose completeness over precision at the cost of some ambiguity.  1 Corinthians 13:12 says that "we see through a glass, darkly." This dark glass Paul is referring to was a description of ancient mirrors. They lack the perfect and precise reflectivity of modern mirrors. Ancient mirrors were basically polished brass. These mirrors would do a good job of presenting a complete or whole image, but the image would be fuzzy, lacking precise expression of details. Images produced by these mirrors provided good knowledge of the big picture but were weak on some of the details. 

God compensates for ambiguity at the level of microscopic or nano-scopic detail NY weaving the fullness of His Message into the Big Picture. Throughout these Bible studies, both narrative and points of doctrine have been supported NY multiple passages in context and multiple contexts that are woven together in one meta-narrative. God has embedded abundant redundancy into his word to insure that his message gets through.  Uncertainties at a microscopic level concerning the integrity  of a particular text or its meaning do not create uncertainty in the larger narrative anymore than a microscopic mole can defile a portrait. 

Further proof that uncertainties in small scales do not create uncertainty in larger scales can be found in physics and mathematics. In physics, this principle is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; and in mathematics, it is called Godel's Completeness and his two Incompleteness Theorems.  These principles prove the epistemology that Paul laid out in 1 Corinthians 13:12 under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

The Heisenberg Principle states that it is impossible to measure with high precision both the position and momentum of particles. It is generally regarded by physicist as, not merely an uncertainty of measurements, but an actual uncertainty in the physical universe. Hyper Lab's description assert that " Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things. "  Below is the following definition from HyperPhysics Lab at Georgia State University. ¹

"The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time.

Δx Δp  >  h/2

ΔE ΔT > h/2

"This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things."

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle  does not destroy certainty on the larger level. It is only at the subatomic level that uncertainty exists. We can be certain of the big picture view of things, but when we pursue precision at the subatomic level we lose some certainty. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle suggests that the universe is porous, allowing for some wiggle room at the smallest levels.  If this be the nature of reality, then it follows that good interpretation of the Bible allow for wiggle-room at the smallest levels. What is gained by precision is lost in certainty

Godel's Completeness and Incompleteness Theorems

Godel's Completeness and Incompleteness Theorems describe the same scope of epistemology as 1 Corinthians 13:12. Godel's Completeness Theorem says that in a natural language or propositional logic, every valid argument can be constructed as a formal proof using the language of mathematics or mathematical logic. Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem states that every  logically consistent formal system, meaning a system that describes proof using mathematical language or meta-language*, has statements that are true but unprovable from within the system. Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem states that no consistent formal system can prove its own validity from statements within the system. Ambiguous, natural language has contained within  it completeness, but the more precise, formal system are necessarily incomplete.

What formal systems gain by precision, they lose in completion.  Even if gaps in one formal system are filled by appeal to another formal system, the second formal system would have gaps of its own. No finite number of formal systems can have complete knowledge. Only an infinite number of formal systems can attain formal completion, and only the mind of God can contain knowledge of an infinite "number" of formal systems.

Three things follow from these three theorems: A finite mind  can find complete, but not exhaustive knowledge expressed in terms of somewhat ambiguous natural language. This knowledge includes certainty about the big picture, but fuzzy on the details - just what Paul claimed in 1 Corinthians 13:12 (Godel's completeness Theorem).  The second is that no formal system can account for all of reality (Both of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems). The third is that no uncertainty caused by incompleteness or inconsistency can destroy the certainty that exists in natural language and logic. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems do not contradict the Completeness Theorem. 

No formal or formalized system can be both consistent and complete. Attempts to do result in discrepancies. These discrepancies, however, do not destroy our knowledge of the whole. These three theorems confirm the Pauline epistemology of 1 Corinthians 13:12. Uncertainties at the microscopic level do not destroy our knowledge of the message of God.

God has chosen to communicate His message in natural language. Natural language is complete and sufficient to convey His intended message. Because no formal system can be both consistent and complete, discrepancies from these systems or formalized  systems    (i. e. modern science) at the microscopic level are not valid objections to the main narrative. Reality exists in such a way that no finite mind can judge with certainty in both a complete and consistent way the smallest scales. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle establishes these limits as a matter of empirical or experiential observation, and Godel's Theorems establish these limits as necessary truths. In the midst of microscopic uncertainty is certainty and completeness concerning the big picture.

The Bible is  consistent concerning the big picture or meta-narrative, and it uniquely and completely provides answer to some fundamental questions that are found nowhere else. God has built in massive redundancy into the Scripture, insuring that important doctrines are confirmed in context and in multiple places.  Weakness in human knowledge at the microscopic level, whether it be matters of textual criticism or that of  the most precise shade of meaning of a word in its original language, do not hinder the ability of the Holy Spirit to deliver God's intended message to man using human language.

The role of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics

While this study in hermeneutics emphasizes  valid methodologies of interpretation, God has not left us with just methods. He has given us his Holy Spirit that we may understand his ways (1 Corinthians 2:9-16).  We should seek God, asking him for the  wisdom He generously gives when we study his word (James 1:5-8). While I have said only a little about seeking God's wisdom, this is the most important thing in hermeneutics.

Scripture References

1 Corinthians 2:9-16; James 1:5-8

Other References

1 HyperPhysics Lab at Georgia State University

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

2  Godel's Completeness Theorem

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/G%C3%B6del_s_completeness_theorem.html

3  Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

4  Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsSecondIncompletenessTheorem.html

Week 54 Questions

1 Can God preserve His message using human language even if our knowledge of that language is less than infallible?

2 What does the Bible say about human epistemology?

3 What is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

4 How does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle confirm Biblical epistemology?

5 What does Godel's Completeness Theorem say?

6 What does Godel's Incompleteness Theorems say?

7 What do Godel's Three Theorems, when taken together, mean for epistemology?

8 Why is  God  redundant in his revelation?

9 What is the most important thing in Hermeneutics?