Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D.
Beginning with seeing this site, you have actually aimed to begin caring reviewing a publication Objectivity In Biblical Interpretation, By Thomas A. Howe Ph.D. This is specialized website that sell hundreds collections of books Objectivity In Biblical Interpretation, By Thomas A. Howe Ph.D. from lots resources. So, you won't be tired anymore to select guide. Besides, if you additionally have no time to search guide Objectivity In Biblical Interpretation, By Thomas A. Howe Ph.D., simply sit when you're in office and open the web browser. You can find this Objectivity In Biblical Interpretation, By Thomas A. Howe Ph.D. inn this internet site by attaching to the net.
Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D.
Read and Download Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D.
Biblical interpretation is facing a crisis. Is Biblical interpretation the result of someone’s particular perspective or personal point of view? Is there no basis upon which we can discover and hold to a “correct” interpretation? More and more authors are surrendering to the influence of Postmodern relativism. This malady is not limited to non-evangelicals. The pervasiveness of a Postmodern perspectivism propagated through the notions of presuppositions, preunderstanding, world views, horizon, paradigms, historicism, and a host of other approaches that are often confusing to a committed Christian who simply wants to understand God’s Word. Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation analyzes and explains the current crisis of objectivity and presents a reasoned defense of objective interpretation that directly confronts the relativistic claims of Postmodern relativism.
Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D.- Amazon Sales Rank: #1065484 in Books
- Published on: 2015-06-05
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 9.00" h x .90" w x 6.00" l, 1.17 pounds
- Binding: Paperback
- 398 pages
About the Author Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D. is an ordained minister and has served churches in Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida since 1973. In 1993, he joined the faculty of Southern Evangelical Seminary and is the Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages. He has also served as Adjunct Professor of New Testament for the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Thomas is married to Patricia. They have three children and nine grandchildren.
Where to Download Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D.
Most helpful customer reviews
26 of 27 people found the following review helpful. An Island of Truth in a Sea of Hermeneutical Indeterminism By Michael H. Clapper This book is long overdue gem of philosophical correction. Since the onset of hermeneutics as a philosophical discipline within the mainstream of post-Kantian philosophy, evangelical Christians have largely followed the trend begun by Schleiermacher and culminating in Gadamer that meaning cannot be objective. In post-Kantian philosophical development, knowing things-in-themselves is considered impossible, and so any meaning that we come across cannot be objective. No one until now has written a well-researched tome from a moderate-realist perspective that not only answers the linguistic analyst but also provides a base from which the Christian may proceed confidently in his Bible study knowing that what He reads is the objective and authoritative Word of God.Contemporary philosophical developments, as Dr. Howe notes, have affected biblical interpretation quite negatively. For example, it is now customary for a Bible study leader not to ask, "What does this text mean?" but rather, "What does this text mean to you?" Thus, for the contemporary reader, the locus of meaning has shifted from the text to the interpreter. Most people, especially in philosophical discussions, do not consider hermeneutics merely the uncovering of the meaning of a text but rather the process of encountering the text that results in an existentially significant understanding. Yet, as Dr Howe points out, without an objective word from God, there is no word of God, and every man does that which is right in his own eyes.Briefly, the author organizes his book as follows:Chapters 1-2: a survey of the current landscape of philosophical hermeneutics as it relates to evangelical attitudes about interpretationChapters 3-6: a critique of contemporary hermeneutics, including an examination of presuppositions, their role in preunderstanding, and why contemporary evangelical thinkers cannot defend objective meaning while operating from the post-Kantian philosophy that denies itChapter 7-10: a case for moderate realism and its implications for: Metaphysics (Chapter 7), Epistemology (Chapter 8), Linguistics (Chapter 9), and, of course, Hermeneutics (Chapter 10).Dr. Howe squarely confronts several unquestioned assumptions most current philosophers accept. One of these prevailing notions is that the necessity of the interpreter's having presuppositions (or "prejudice" to use Gadamer's term) results in the impossibility of objectivity. For everyone approaches the text from his own unique perspective, as seems quite obvious. After all, we all have our own perspectives. Further, objectivity requires a neutral interpretation. Therefore, there is no "view from nowhere" as Nagel writes, and objectivity is impossible. Yet, if all presuppositions indicate subjectivity on the part of interpretation, does this also means that the statement "All presuppositions are subjective" is itself subjective? If it is subjective, there's no case for saying that such subjectivism is the way things really are. If it is not, it violates its own principle by positing an objective understanding of reality. As Dr. Howe explains, most influential hermeneuticians, including Saussure, Heidegger, and Gadamer, fall prey to such self-defeating claims. Thus, Dr. Howe argues that not only is objectivity not impossible; it is actually unavoidable. Differences of opinion as to an interpretation do not mean differences of realities about which those differences purport.Second, it is assumed by most philosophers that the way we know things is by some type of representationalism. In epistemology, one of the fundamental questions concerns the relationship between the knower and the known. A representational scheme, as Dr. Howe outlines, states that what we know in the mind is a copy of what is outside of it. For since the mind is immaterial and reality outside the mind is material, there is no way to get the material into the immaterial, and so what resides in the mind is a copy of what is outside the mind. As Thomas Nagel writes, it is impossible to paint a picture of all of reality because the painter cannot paint himself painting reality. Hence, the impossible view from nowhere seems inevitable, and objectivity is apparently lost. However, what if it is the case that Descartes had it wrong and that reality is actually more than merely bodies extended in space? What if reality is more like the Aristotelian/Thomistic description of form ("whatness") and matter ("thisness")? Then knowledge is not justified true belief (plus something else, say some) but a dynamic union of knower to the known. In the moderate realist epistemology for which Dr. Howe argues, the mind actively acquires the form of the object through his senses; the mind does not passively receive sense data as modern empiricists say. As Dr. Howe explains in detail, there are various powers of the mind in cognition that account for the experience we all have of knowing things. There is sense cognition in which we acquire and intellectual cognition in which we analyze and learn. By knowing, the knower becomes the thing he knows in an intentional way, and so the thing in the mind is what is in reality (only intentionally, not materially). Considered in this way, representationalism and all its foibles are discarded, and knowledge once again becomes not only a possibility but an unavoidable reality, especially in the absence of any empirical skepticism.In the end, Dr. Howe does something desperately needed but, until now, unaddressed: critique the post-Kantian philosophy that has crippled contemporary Christian thinking in more ways than we realize - especially in how we interpret our Bibles. But for what he takes away in his critique he gives back in far greater proportion: a solid moderate realist philosophy from which we may base not only an objective hermeneutic, but also every other intellectual discipline we may encounter.
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful. A must-read for every Christian By TKKMFamily This is the best book on the market dealing with the issue of interpreting the Bible objectively. Dr. Howe demonstrates throughout this book that he is well-educated not only in hermeneutics, but in philosophy as well, and based on his knowledge of these subjects, Howe presents a solid case for objectivity in interpretation.Whatever book(s) you have read on the subject of objectivity in interpretation, you must read this book if you want to understand not only why the evangelical Christian must hold to the objectivity of interpretation, but HOW the reader arrives at an objective interpretation.This is not an extremely easy read, but the average lay person should be able to understand and apply it.This book is now a central part of my collection of books on interpretation!
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful. Absolutely outstanding By C. Morrison 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.
See all 6 customer reviews... Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D.Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D. PDF
Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D. iBooks
Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D. ePub
Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D. rtf
Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D. AZW
Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, by Thomas A. Howe Ph.D. Kindle
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar