Discussion 6: Schleiermacher

Posted by:

Richard

|

On:

|

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION SERIES: PART 6

[Click here for the companion YouTube video]

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) was a Prussian pastor, professor, and theologian who made significant contributions to numerous fields of study including philosophy, theology, and (of course) hermeneutics. He is most commonly referred to as the Father of Liberal Theology, but he is also considered the Father of Modern Hermeneutics. Schleiermacher published his first great work, On Religion, in 1799. Its impact was immense. At the time, rationalism dominated the approach of Enlightenment theologians and supernaturalism dominated the approach of conservative theologians. On Religion was a strong challenge to both positions. Schleiermacher’s theology was subjective and focused on achieving a sense of absolute dependence on God. Authority from personal religious experience, therefore according to Schleiermacher, is even higher than Scripture. Scripture should therefore be interpreted as objectively as possible using the same interpretive rules as for any other writings. The following is an excerpt from a journal article that analyzes Schleiermacher’s hermeneutical approach. The full paper is available here.

Reading: Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics consists of grammatical and psychological interpretations. The former understands the discourse and how it has been composed in terms of its language, and the latter understands it as a presentation of thought …  According to Schleiermacher, if we have complete knowledge of both the author and the language, the two interpretations could proceed in complete independence from each other and produce exactly the same result. Practically, however, because no such complete knowledge is available to any interpreter, the grammatical interpretation is inconceivable without the help of the psychological one, just as the psychological interpretation is impossible without the assistance of the grammatical one. Here, one must already know a man in order to under stand what he says, and yet one first becomes acquainted with him by what he says … [Hermeneutics is therefore] an art of moving back and for the between the two. The key is to know when one side should give way to the other and where one can start and conclude the movement provisionally. Since no rules can stipulate exactly how to do this, the interpreter, like an artist, makes these decisions through his feeling, which much be the substitute for completeness. [Yong Huang, “The Father of Modern Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age: A Reinterpretation of Schleiermacher’s Hermeneutics,” Philosophy Today, Summer 1996: 251-253.]

Posted by

Richard

in

3 responses to “Discussion 6: Schleiermacher”

  1. Paul K. Miller Avatar
    Paul K. Miller

    Hello Rich–thank you for introducing us to this important theologian. A couple of thoughts:
    First, it seems to me that Schleiermacher discounts too much the psychology of the interpreter that he brings to his task. That is, does not the interpreter’s own history, education, beliefs, values, ethics, biases etc. factor heavily into his hermeneutics? And even if the interpreter is diligent in his efforts to minimize the effects of these things, how can we be assured that their remnants don’t factor into his interpretation of the text?
    Second, it seems to me that the goal of the interpreter is not nearly as much to understand the psychology of the author as it is to understand the thing that’s been written. In focusing on trying to understand more fully the historical details of the author, his life, his upbringing, his marriage(s), etc., are we not at risk of “missing the forest for the trees?
    No need to answer these questions here. But perhaps some morsels for Saturday’s discussion.

    Reply
    1. Richard Avatar
      Richard

      Paul – great insights! In terms of the psychology of the interpreter, Schleiermacher was insistent on trying to be as objective as possible, including making no theological assumptions. When we get to Discussion Topic 8, Karl Barth will address head-on the tendency for the interpreter to engage in “self-deception.” In terms of “missing the forest for the trees,” Schleiermacher was the first in an academic trend (historical-critical method) to assume that there is no forest, only trees. That is, the literal interpretation is the only valid interpretation, and anything beyond this is a distortion. We will see this in explicit form next week with Charles Hodge, and then a course correction in Part 9, which addresses the theological interpretation of Scripture. I look forward to a rich discussion on Saturday!

      Reply
  2. Paul K. Miller Avatar
    Paul K. Miller

    Thanks Rich. I might not be able to attend Sat. ☹️

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *