Interpreting Scripture / Interpreting Law

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

ABSTRACT.This essay focuses on some of the vexing problems facing those who utilize what this essay refers to as dogmatic approaches to interpreting religion or law. The focus here will be on biblical interpretation and constitutional interpretation. Specifically, I will compare biblical literalism with textualism and originalism in constitutional interpretation. These approaches suffer from problems of translation both figuratively and literally. The essay is just a basic introduction to these ideas, and can not serve as a thorough treatment of the ideas.Keywords: legal interpretation, constitutional interpretation, legal hermeneutics, biblical interpretation, formalism, realismIntroductionScholars have frequently noted the similarities between interpreting scripture and interpreting law,1 especially interpreting a Constitution.2 There are, of course, significant differences as well. The field of hermeneutics-theories of interpretation-has a long history, as does the field of legal hermeneutics. Moreover, much has been written on the relationship between religious interpretation and legal interpretation.3This essay is not meant to provide even a basic overview of these rich and diverse fields of inquiry. Rather, the focus is on some of the vexing problems facing those who utilize what this essay refers to as dogmatic approaches to interpreting religion or law.4 The focus here will be on biblical interpretation and constitutional interpretation. Specifically, I will compare biblical literalism with textualism and originalism. As will be seen these approaches suffer from problems of translation both figuratively and literally (in the case of Biblical literalism in the U.S.).1. Drifting Unreflectively Through Language and Time: The Joys of DogmatismBiblical literalism is highly problematic unless one reads ancient Hebrew (Old Testament), Greek and/or Aramaic (new testament). Claiming to take the words of the bible literally without being fluent in these languages is like claiming to take every word of a work of complex Greek philosophy literally without understanding Greek. Translations are not perfect even when translators use their best efforts. Some translations, such as the King James Bible, are even more problematic because they also served a political function.5Even if one could literally translate from one language into another without losing, changing, or augmenting meaning, the problems of cultural and historical shifts remain.6 When one claims to take the words of the bible literally one not only ignores the problem of translation from language to language, but also the problem of dasein (being in the world).7 We are the products of our traditions and cultural embeddedness.8 When we try to understand historical texts we tend to bring them forward to our time and/or attempt to put ourselves back in the period when they were written.9 Yet, we did not live in that time or culture and it is hard to escape our horizon (view of the world) when we engage with the text.10 Therefore, we may fail to consider accurately what the words meant in the culture and time when they were written.11Of course, many theologians have long recognized this and many faiths are not literalist in the sense of taking every word of holy texts to be literally true without the need for interpretation.12 These theologians understand that even literalists are interpreting. Literalists sometimes don't realize or acknowledge that they are doing so, but they cannot escape interpreting holy texts (or interpreting generally).13 One way to address this is the recognition by some Protestant theologians that if one is sufficiently connected to Jesus one can understand the teaching in the bible despite these linguistic, cultural and historical voids.14 The problem here is that many who claim to be sufficiently connected to Jesus and to interpret the text literally disagree with each other as to its meaning. …