The purpose of this study is to discuss the role of
preunderstanding in historical and biblical interpretation.
We define preunderstanding as that set of assumptions and
attitudes which a person brings to his apprehension and
interpretation of reality or any aspect of it. Because
preunderstanding comes in a myriad of shapes, an effort is
made to classify them by type and to suggest some categories
of function. Once this is done the argument is able to
proceed. The initial and foundational point which is made
is that certain aspects of reality suggest, even demand, that
a particular preunderstanding be present on the part of the
interpreter if they are to be fully grasped and adequately
interpreted. Judging the Christian revelation to be no
exception to this general rule, we set about finding the
appropriate preunderstanding for its apprehension and interpretation. We assert that it is faith joined with the
historical method which constitutes the only adequate preunderstanding for the interpretation of the Christian revelation.
We then turn our attention to the issues raised by this
assertion. The first issue with which we deal is the precise
role of a consciously articulated preunderstanding (a hermeneutic)
in the interpretive task. This in turn leads us to a discussion
of the problem of revelation and history. We next examine
the central issue of the study, the role of preunderstanding
in historical interpretation, and consider its implications
for the specific task of interpreting the Christian faith.
Having defined and categorized preunderstanding and analyzed
its role in historical and biblical interpretation, we are in
a position to discuss representative interpreters of the
faith as they have appeared in and during the life of the
church. To this task we devote Sections II and III.
In Section II we discuss the role of preunderstanding in
six representative historical interpretations of the Christian
faith. In Augustine we see the influence of his exposure
to Neo-platonism as he attempts to construct a biblical
interpretation of history. Edward Gibbon, a rationalist in
love with the glory of pagan Tome, depicts the Christian
faith as an enemy of the progress of mankind. The philosopher,
Hegel, forces the Christian faith into the confines of his
metaphysical system. In Adolph von Harnack we find a nineteenth century liberal world view shaping the categories in
which Jesus is understood. Reacting to this liberal mentality,
the dialectical theologians of the 1930's, which we discuss in
the person of Emil Brunner, attempt to remove the Christ - event from historical scrutiny altogether by creating a realm
of super-history. We conclude Section II with an analysis
of the views of the American theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr,
whose deep involvement in the American social situation and
wide reading in the thought of Western culture, influence
his historical interpretation of the Christian faith.
In Section ITI we turn our attention to six representative
interpreters of the Bible, again attempting to ascertain the
role of each interpreter's preunderstanding in his efforts.
Origen, under the influence of Platonism and the allegorical
method, interprets the Bible as a source book for divine
truth. The great reformer, Martin Luther, approaches the
Bible in the light of his own unique historical situation and
Personal exrerience. Spinoza, a Cartesian rationalist, views
the Bible as the product of the popular "imaginations' and
interprets it accordingly. John Wesley, the leading figure
of the Pietist movement, comes to the Bible with the expectancy
that it will speak to personal experience. In Charles Spurgeon
we find an interpreter who, as a faithful representative of
protestant Orthodoxy, understands the Bible as being the
literal Word of God. As a contrast to Spurgeon we complete
Section III by examining the views of the liberal American
preacher, Barry Emerson Fosdick, who views the Bible as a thoroughly human book which nevertheless contains lessons of
"abiding value".
We conclude our study of preunderstanding in a final
charter in which we attempt to restate the main thread of
our theme, summarize the results of its application to
representative interpreters and suggest some mandates for
the general task of interpretation.