As stated in the previous post, most theological systems employ varying levels of interpretive filters in their approach to scripture. These filters create biases that have the capacity to determine what is seen—to shape one’s perspective. However, the real quandary lies in the fact that few see anything amiss with that. That’s the trouble with biases, everyone assumes they have the right one.
Some might take this a step further and claim that a mosaic perspective is also born from a bias: a bias against systems.
Perhaps. However, that would be understating the data. A mosaic perspective, that which is antithetical to filters, at least for me, was born out of asking why certain pieces (some big pieces, mind you) were sifted out of the scriptural whole. Not only were there certain questions that the theological systems failed to answer, but that they seemed to avoid altogether.
Ironic how unsystematic most systems can be…
Needless to say, this led me down a path of reviewing, rethinking, and relearning. It caused me to take a step back. To not miss the theological forest for the doctrinal trees.
I think what struck me most about theological filtration systems, or TFS’s, is the inconsistent nature of their hermeneutics. Or, should I say, the inconsistent application.
There are many methods used for interpreting the scriptures. A good—and to my mind, proper—hermeneutic will make use of them all. That is, in no small part, due to the fact that the compendium of scripture we call the Bible is, itself, a mosaic of sorts.
It is a compilation of varying forms of literature: poetry, historical accounts, polemics, letters, legal documents, mythic history, et cetera. As such, a singular interpretive tactic is insufficient. Yet all tactics must remain within the context of an exegetical aim or strategy.
That is, they should seek to expose rather than impose. Otherwise, we run the risk of conferring upon the text rather than inferring from it.
Having established that biblical hermeneutics must be based upon exegesis, I’d like to address further the claim that a mosaic approach is, itself, a TFS birthed from a bias against them. To do so, I will appeal to a form of textual criticism/interpretation known as Reasoned Eclecticism.
The main issue facing biblical interpreters is, obviously, linguistic. The scriptures, written in ancient Hebrew and koine Greek over centuries, have a variety of textual obstacles. Any honest biblical student, or believer for that matter, will—I would say they must—acknowledge this. Rather than rehearse the gamut, which would extend well beyond my aim, (if you would like a more exhaustive explanation and treatment of text criticism and the issues therein, see the list of references at the end of this post) suffice it to say that among the oldest extant manuscripts, both Hebrew and Greek, there are variant readings. The percentage is small but significant nonetheless.
Text Critical scholars spend their lives seeking to make sense of these variants and find the correct reading or version. To this problem, there are three main approaches: Reasoned Eclecticism, Thoroughgoing Eclecticism, and Byzantine Priority. I’ll summarize each in reverse order.
Byzantine Priority:
On the basis of transmissional considerations, the Byzantine-priority hypothesis would claim that the original form of the NT text would be more likely to manifest itself within whatever texttype might be overwhelmingly attested to within the manuscript tradition, to the exclusion of all others.
In short, whichever manuscript tradition has the most copies is considered the correct reading. (This, by the way, is the reasoning employed by ”King James Only” protagonists.)
Thoroughgoing Eclecticism:
In simplest terms, thoroughgoing eclecticism consists of taking all manuscript readings and choosing the best based solely on internal criteria. In other words, the data or evidence used for deduction is isolated to the manuscripts themselves. No exterior data is consulted.
Reasoned Eclecticism:
New Testament textual critics work with two categories of evidence, conventionally designated as “external” (provided by the manuscripts themselves, including relative age, geographic distribution, and relative weight of the witnesses) and as “internal” (dealing with scribal habits and practice, on the one hand, and authorial style and vocabulary, on the other).
To do justice to both sorts of evidence, nearly all contemporary textual critics utilize a methodological approach generally known as “reasoned eclecticism.” In this approach, one fundamental guideline governs all other considerations: at any given point of variation, the variant most likely to represent the initial text is the one that best accounts for the existence of the others. It is important to emphasize that “best accounts for” is to be understood as encompassing both internal and external considerations.
In short, reasoned eclecticism looks at all the evidence (internal and external) and seeks to find an answer that makes sense or represents all of it.
Reasoned Eclecticism, is in Textual Criticism, what I would call a mosaic approach. It is also illustrative of the hermeneutical approach I’ve been describing. The mosaic perspective/approach to hermeneutics (scriptural/biblical interpretation) has the same general premise as Reasoned Eclecticism: what interpretation best fits the external and internal evidence of the scriptures.
Internal evidence meaning written linguistic content. External evidence meaning historical, cultural, and theological context.
On the face of it, most theologians, interpreters, and doctrinal adherents would agree with that methodology. However, TFS’s are notorious for, what I call, subjective contextual isolation. That is, they pick and choose when and if they will consult external evidence, as defined above, to aid in the interpretive process.
Let me give you an example. A common case of subjective contextual isolation (SCI) is applied to quotations of Jeremiah 29:11. We’ve all seen believers quote this scripture as a declaration of hope for a better future, especially in difficult times—even recent difficult times. A trend I have noticed from certain theological circles (which will remain nameless) is to respond to such quotations with words, just shy of mockery, to this affect:
“”For I know the plans that I am planning concerning you,’ declares Yahweh, ‘plans for prosperity and not for harm, to give to you a future and a hope”…if you’re a seventh century Israelite living in captivity in Babylon.”” The implication of such a statement is that this verse has no relevant application to the life of a modern believer.
In order to make this case, the verse is subjectively isolated by the critic to its historical and cultural context. Thus nullifying it of relevance to any future persons, Israelite or otherwise.
To show the flaw in this logic, let’s look at another frequently quoted scripture from the same book. But before we do, consider the ramifications of such interpretive reasoning if applied more broadly, even only to the book of Jeremiah. Since the audience Jeremiah was writing to was seventh century Israel in captivity in Babylon, following the reasoning of this particular SCI, none of the prophet’s words contained in scripture have relevance to any future persons, Israelite or otherwise, beyond that isolated historical group.
What’s more, the frequently quoted scripture I mentioned, which I am about to address, and the doctrine of the theological circle I referenced that it props up become subjected to the limitations set by the SCI. The verse to which I am referring is a famous proof text for the doctrine of total depravity. It is Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is deceitful more than anything else, and it is disastrous. Who can understand it?”
If the same logic behind the subjective contextual isolation applied to Jeremiah 29:11 is also applied to 17:9, then any ontological implications it may offer in regards to sin are isolated to seventh century Israelites in captivity in Babylon.
Now one might argue that there is a difference in context between 17:9 and 29:11. That argument would be mistaken. Both instances have “says the Lord”, or a declaration by the prophet (Jeremiah in this case) on behalf of Yahweh to Israel, as their context. They are both prophetic utterances. The only difference is content not context.
This further solidifies the subjective nature of this line of reasoning. Especially since no one who applies it to 29:11 would ever apply it to 17:9, let alone the whole book.
It is precisely interpretive issues, or hermeneutical inconsistencies—more like hypocrisies, but I digress—such as this, inherent to many, if not all, theological filtration systems that make the case for the need for reasoned eclecticism in hermeneutics (i.e. a mosaic perspective/approach).
To put it frankly, and conclusively, filters are blinders that prevent the full picture from becoming visible. To use the mosaic metaphor, because filters sift and sort out certain types of pieces, they create holes. Some of which are quite large—even gaping. Which is a problem—at least, it should be—if one is going to claim to adhere to a biblical theology. Portions of the scripture may support it, but any system created and sustained via the use of filters is hardly representative of the whole.
David Alan Black Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism
D.A. Carson The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism
The Naked Bible Podcast Episodes 99 & 104