Chapter 1

MODERNISM AND MODERN HERMEMEUTICS

Old Testament interpretation has a long history, spanning from the Old Testament
period, through the Second Temple period, the Early Church period, Church Fathers
period, the medieval period, to the modern and postmodern periods. The interest of this
book is confined to the latter two: the hermeneutics of the modern and postmodern
periods. We shall begin with modern hermeneutics. For the benefits of beginners, a
definition of the terminology is necessary.
1.1 Definition
The term “modern” is derived from the Latin word modernus, which means “just
now.” Thus, the term “modern” means things relating to the present or recent times.
Often it also means recent and new methods or techniques, as against old or traditional
ones.
In history, philosophy and theology, however, “modern” refers to the period of
history from the Renaissance to the middle of the twentieth century. It is called “modern”
because during this period people departed from the old (medieval) ways of thinking and
numerous of new developments in politics, cultures, commerce, arts and science took
place. This is the sense of the term to which we refer here. Also, as most of the
developments which we will speak of took place in Western society (Europe and North
America), our discussion of modern hermeneutics refers mostly to events in Western
society.1
In biblical studies, the term “hermeneutics” usually refers to a study of theories of
biblical interpretation, but at times it also refers to methods of interpreting the Bible.
Modern hermeneutics, then, is a study of theories (or methods) of biblical interpretation
developed in the modern period.
To understand modern hermeneutics two preliminary observations are helpful.
The first is a particular phenomenon seen in modern hermeneutics and the other is the
historical background of modern hermeneutics.

1
Nevertheless, like science and technology, biblical scholarship has spread from the West to the rest of the
world. This means what concerned them also concerns us.

1
1.2 A Phenomenon: Paradigmatic Shifts in Modern Hermeneutics
Living in the postmodern 21st century, we have the advantage of hindsight and
having a clearer view of things in the modern era. A cursory review shows an interesting
phenomenon in modern hermeneutics: it moved in paradigmatic shifts. Studying the
phenomenon will help us understand modern hermeneutics better.
1.2.1 Paradigm Shifts in Science
The modern era is noted for its progress in science. The progress reflects shifts in
the way people understood things around them, as the following illustration shows. The
Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that the reason certain things fall to the ground is
because the center of the earth attracts them; other things (such as gases) do not fall to the
ground because they are attracted by the heaven or the moon. For centuries, people were
satisfied with this explanation. Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation changed their view.
Newton argued that gravitation happens because all objects with mass attract each other.
These attracting forces keep the earth and other planets in their orbits around the sun.
Again, for centuries, people were happy with Newton’s theory, until Albert Einstein
came up with his general theory of relativity. Einstein’s theory managed to solve a
number of problems which Newton’s theory could not, thus exposing the flaws of the
latter.2
The discussion above reflects humans’ desire for a more reasonable explanation
and interest in new discoveries. These two factors propelled the development of
gravitation theories. Each time a new theory gained sufficient support from scientists, a
paradigm shift occurred, and each paradigm shift marked a new development in science.
For this reason, Thomas S. Kuhn in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argued
that science progresses by means of paradigm shifts.3 While Kuhn’s theory is disputed by
some,4 it explains well how science progresses.

2
For instance, for a long time, experts failed to account entirely for the orbit of Mercury under Newton’s
theory, a problem which is now solved by Einstein’s theory.
3
T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
4
For example by K. Popper, “Normal Science and its Dangers,” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge;
(ed. I. Lavatos and A. Musgrave; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 51-58.

2
1.2.2 Paradigm Shifts in Biblical Interpretation
Modern biblical scholarship can be explained by Kuhn’s theory for two reasons.5
Firstly, scientific conclusions often have implications for biblical interpretation. A
paradigm shift in science could lead to a paradigm shift in biblical interpretation. For
instance, for centuries Christians’ understanding of Genesis 1 and Ecc 1:5 followed the
Ptolemaic theory that the earth was the center of the universe (geo-centrism). For them,
the Ptolemaic model was the biblical model and absolute truth. When Copernicus (and
subsequently Galileo) proposed that actually the sun was the center of the solar system
(called helio-centrism), the Roman Catholic Church condemned them and forced them to
recant their helio-centric thesis. As far as the Church was concerned, the view that the
earth is the center of the universe was soundly based on their interpretation of the Bible,
to say otherwise was heresy. Similarly, after the Reformation, orthodox Calvinists
rejected the Copernican thesis vehemently. They asserted that if the helio-centric thesis
was true, it would mean that “God says things to us He knows are not true, in other words
lies to us; since in the story of Joshua and elsewhere [Ecclesiastes 1:4-7; Psalms 19:5-7],
Holy Scripture plainly affirms the sun circles the earth, this must be so.”6
Today no Christian would question the Copernican thesis. The reason is self-
explanatory: it is now scientifically proven that the sun is the center of our solar system.
This scientific progress has forced Christians to rethink and adapt their interpretation of
the Bible, which resulted in a “paradigm shift” in their understanding of the universe.
Thus the paradigm shift in science has led to the paradigm shift in Bible interpretation.
The second reason Kuhn’s theory is applicable to modern hermeneutics is that
like their scientist counterparts, biblical scholars also always seek a more satisfactory
explanation of the Bible. This has resulted in paradigm shifts in methods by which they
interpret the Bible. This is particularly true of the history of historical critical scholarship.
As scholars always assumed that there was a better way of interpreting the Bible,
historical critical methodology shifted from source criticism to form criticism, to traditio-
historical criticism and redaction criticism.

5
So J.W. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); also
V. Poytress, “Science and Hermeneutics,” in Foundation of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1996), 461-68.
6
T. Verbeek, Descartes and the Dutch (Carbondale, IL: 1992), 74, 89, cited in J.I. Israel, The Radical
Enlightenment (Oxford: Oxford University, 2001), 27.

3
1.2.3 Lessons Drawn from the Phenomenon
We may draw several lessons from the phenomenon (paradigmatic shifts in
modern hermeneutics) cited above. Firstly, the constant change in interpretive paradigms
show that biblical interpretation is a living art. New generations of interpreters constantly
review the methods of their predecessors in the hope of offering a better interpretation of
a text. Consequently, there is no such thing as the method, but methods. No interpretive
theory is perfect – no matter how persuasive it is – and thus nobody can claim that theirs
is the only legitimate method.
Secondly, the ever shifting of paradigms exposes the limitation of human
understanding of the Bible. As our methods are imperfect, our conclusions, therefore,
may be wrong. For this reason, an interpreter should remain humble and stand to be
corrected. By implication, this also means that the interpreter should be open to different
views, as far as those views do not erode their faith in the fundamental teachings of the
Bible.
Thirdly, when a method is found flawed, it is not necessarily utterly useless nor
should its contributions be ignored. Kuhn’s assessment of Newton’s theory is educational.
He points out that Einstein’s theory showed only the limitations of Newton’s theory, not
that Newton was wrong. Under certain conditions, Newtonian theory is still valid and
useful, as most engineers and physicists would testify.7
Fourthly, the constant paradigmatic shifting also reveals that methods are the
product of the concepts and values of their era. The paradigm shifts in science brought
with them new ways of looking at things, which in turn brought new ways in interpreting
the Bible. As such, modern hermeneutics is inseparable from the concepts or values of
the era to which it belonged. For this reason, to understand modern hermeneutics, we
should also make another observation, that is, the worldview in which modern biblical
scholars lived. A brief discussion of historical setting is therefore in order.
1.3 The Historical Setting of Modern Hermeneutics: the Age of Reason
Beginning from Renaissance (fourteenth to seventeenth centuries), European
thinkers have begun to give special importance to reason. During this period, most fields

7
T. Kuhn, “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions,” in From Modernism to Postmodernism
(ed. L. Cahoone; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1996), 315.

4
of discipline, science or the Bible, were still subjected to confessional theology and
supervised by the Roman Catholic Church.8 Reformers such as Martin Luther and John
Calvin liberated the Bible from the control of the Church, thus “freed the Scriptures to
exercise a critical function in the church.”9 The unexpected consequence of the liberation
is that later it opened the door to a rational/critical reading of the Bible.10 By the time of
the Enlightenment (eighteenth century), this door was wide open, which resulted in a
radical shift in religious conceptions.11
The age of reason is closely associated with René Descartes (1596-1650), who
built “the whole metaphysical superstructure of Western philosophy.”12 The primary idea
of Descartes is that we must doubt everything except our reason.13 Reason, then, is one
certain truth on which we can rely, and every other truth has to be built on this
“unshakeable” foundation.
Later Descartes’s followers divided into two groups. A moderate group attempted
to reconcile the Cartesian theory with their faith by arguing that reason can think
critically in natural matters, whereas the Bible is authoritative in the matters of faith. The
radical wing of Cartesians, however, rejected the view. They argued that reason should
govern both natural and faith matters. As such, the emphasis on reason had grown into
rationalism,14 and “reason was made the norm over religion and the Scriptures.” People
began to search for “reasonable Christianity,” a belief system that can stand the test of
reason.15 This is reflected in one of the products of the era, John Locke’s Essay on
Human Understanding (1690) and The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in

8
Cf. Israel, The Radical Enlightenment, 24.
9
E. Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 10.
10
This is not to suggest that Reformation was a mistake. The intention of the reformers was to allow people
freedom to interpret the Bible. Later critical scholars, however, used the freedom not only to interpret, but
also to question the Bible and its authority.
11
See K. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Belief in Sixteenth and
Seventeenth-Century England (London: Penguin, 1973), 640, 659.
12
A.K.M Adam, What is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995), 5.
13
As popular known to be have been reflected in the remark “Cogito, ergo sum.”
14
An example of this is Pierre Bayle’s argument that reason is “the only instrument adequate to discover
truth.” See Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, 17.
15
Such efforts often turn away from church tradition and revelation to natural philosophy and Deism. See
D. Outram, The Enlightenment (2nd ed; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 95, 109-25.

5
the Scriptures (1695). Locke asserted that “reason is natural revelation” and “remove
reason and you remove revelation.”16
It was against such a backdrop modern hermeneutics arose and produced scholars
such as DeWette, Julius Wellhausen, Herman Gunkel, Martin Noth, Gerhard von Rad,
whom evangelicals label liberals. In keeping with the Cartesian ideal, these scholars
attempted to establish an “unshakeable foundation” for biblical studies. If the Newton
theory is the “unshakable foundation” of physics, these biblical scholars hoped to
produce an equivalent foundation for biblical interpretation.
However, we should add that the Enlightenment has produced not only liberal
scholars. As we shall see later, certain degree of the influence of the Enlightenment is
also evident in conservative/evangelical hermeneutics. The emphasis on reason and
science has not only produced source criticism, form criticism or traditio-historical
criticism, but also grammatical historical methods as practiced by many evangelicals.
Some evangelicals have carried reason so far as to call the Bible a “textbook of
science.”17 In sum, modernism is so prevalent that nobody escapes its worldview; both
the liberal and the evangelical appeal to reason in their interpretation of the Bible. Both
camps reflect assumptions characteristic of modernism, as we shall show below.
1.4 Some Basic Assumptions of Modern Methods of Interpretation
While it seems simplistic, for beginners it is useful to outline some of their
assumptions, no matter how imperfect it is. Chief among these is the Cartesian ideal that
truth can be established through reason.18 This assumption leads to the notion that one
must find the meaning of a text in its most original form. The Cartesian spirit in the
modern exegete refuses to take a text at its face value. Instead, it seeks to uncover its
meaning as it was first written. In other words, the exegete assumes that the true meaning
of the text lies in the original author. The authorial intent, then, is the goal of biblical
interpretation.19 The uncovering of the original meaning is to be done on two assumptions.

16
Cited by Krentz, The Historical Critical Method, 16.
17
As suggested by the title of H.M. Morris’ article, “The Bible Is a Textbook of Science,” BibSacra 121/4
(1964), 341-50.
18
Cf. Krentz, The Historical Critical Method, 13.
19
This goal is deceptively straightforward. In reality, it is complicated. As we shall see soon, the definition
of “original author” become a point of contention among scholars. For some historical critical scholars,
original authors are the writers of the various sources such as the Jahwist, the Elohist, and the Priestly
Writer. Other historical critical readers argue that original authors are people who first started the oral

6
Firstly, it must be done in a scientific way;20 secondly, it must be done by a historical
study of the text.21
1.5 Conclusion
The foregoing discussion can be summed up as follows:
1.5.1 Modern Hermeneutics as “Critical” Studies
Modern hermeneutics marked a departure from the medieval and confessional
hermeneutics. In contrast to the dogmatic and confessional nature of its predecessors,
modern hermeneutics has been developed with the belief that truth has to be established
through reason. This means (Roman) church tradition and doctrines ought to be excluded
from the reading process.22 Modern interpretive methods insist that we must read the text
purely by itself, without being influenced by our pre-understanding (church tradition).
The reader has to apply critical thinking and let reason interact with and evaluate the text.
For this reason, such readings are also called “critical studies,” and those who conduct
such studies are often called “critical scholars.” Hence there was a time these scholars
called their works “critical commentaries,” in order to distinguish themselves from “pre-
critical” works.23
In reading the text by itself, these scholars also meant that they were interested in
what a biblical text meant in its original context to its original readers. Such a reading
requires knowledge of the historical background of the text.24 For this reason, this kind of
approach is also called “historical” method or “historical critical” method. Since the

traditions on which a book is based. Yet for others, they are the final redactors of biblical books. In the
evangelical circles, for some scholars original authors are those traditionally identified; for others they are
those who are re-constructed from internal-biblical data. Given the diversity of definitions, identifying the
“original author” of a book becomes a very challenging task.
20
Wellhausen wrote, “I became a theologian because I was interested in the scientific treatment of the
Bible”; cited in A. Jepsen, “The Scientific Study of the Old Testament,” in Essays on Old Testament
Interpretation (ed. C. Westermann; London: SCM, 1963), 247.
21
For modern scholars, being historical is to be scientific. For instance, in order to assure the scientific
character of theological studies, A. von Harnack attempted rigorous historical research. In the same vein,
after Harnack, H. Gressmann associated “one goal of Old Testament research” with “the historical
understanding of the Old Testament.” See Jepsen, ibid., 248.
22
Cf. Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, 14-16.
23
E.g. the International Critical Commentary (ICC) series published by T&T Clark. Skinner (Genesis [ICC;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910], vii), prefaced his commentary on Genesis by saying that his task was to
“supply the fuller treatment of critical [emphasis mine], exegetical, literary and archaeological questions,
which the present state of scholarship demands.”
24
By this scholars mean either the historical background of the events cited in the text or the historical
development of the text (i.e. how it became the text as it stands today).

7
reading involves a critical study of the literary history of a text (how the text became
what it is), at times it is also called “literary criticism.”25
1.5.2 Modern Hermeneutics as a Product of Presuppositions
Ironically, the search for “pre-understanding free” hermeneutics turns out to be an
elusive. Our observation above revealed that modern readers are inextricable from the
milieu to which they belong. Their interpretive methods reflect the worldview of the
modern era. This fact is acknowledged by both liberal and evangelical scholars. For
instance, F. Schleiermacher – the father of modern theology and a key representative of
liberal Protestantism – admitted that one’s presuppositions and background determine
their understanding.26 Evangelical scholars such as D. McCartney and C. Clayton echo
this view: “underlying all our thinking and interpreting are our presuppositions about life
and ultimate realities, our worldview.”27
As such, modern scholars do not escape the prevalent worldview of their times.
As a matter of fact, from the perspective of 21st century that worldview represents the
“tradition” of their era. This being the case, the claim that their studies are “free from
traditions” and therefore “critical” is not completely true. It is in this light we shall now
proceed to a survey of these modern interpretive methods.

25
This term is usually used to refer to Source Criticism. It is to be distinguished from “New Literary
Criticism,” a set of approaches developed after the World War II which pay attention to the literary
qualities of a text. See chapter 4.
26
Hermeneutics: The Handwritten Manuscripts (ed. H. Kimmerle; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977), 59.
27
D. McCartney and C. Clayton, Let the Reader Understand (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1994), 13.