An axiomatic approach to hermeneutics
My approach is summarized as:
Start with God exists.
Find the center: assume the outer layers of the religion may be tainted, and find the core. As applied to Biblical interpretation, I don’t care if the the outer layers of the religion are wrong or flawed. I want to know if the core is true, and then judge auxiliary religious texts (such as the Epistles) by this core.
Proceed from the axiomatic center. I approach Christianity as a formal system, expect it to function as one, and see how far I can extrapolate on its principles. I should be able to take the religion infinitely seriously.
Assume the understandability of scripture.
Why even go on this journey?
The book is Lindy, was useful for thousands of years, and will likely stay relevant for thousands more, and so it’s worth studying whether I think it’s the word of God or not. It is also the religious tradition associated with the rich Western tradition.
Faith shouldn’t be merely reasonable, nor should it be unreasonable. Taking a rational approach to the texts should not take anything away from them, but should make any leap of faith a little easier to take. There’s no need to be hyped or smooth-talked into it.
The Bible should not contradict empirical evidence of the world. I’m willing to go even further to say that the Bible shouldn’t contradict the theory of evolution. I’m quite convinced of the theory and it would take a great deal of evidence for me to become unconvinced.
Start with God exists
I start with God exists. Genesis does this. It says, “in the beginning God…” There’s no attempt to prove God’s existence. I take God as an axiom and move on. I’ve written before about defining God into existence.
Find the center (assume Biblical defense in depth)
From Wikipedia on defense in depth:
Luttwak's Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (1976) launched the thesis that in the third and early fourth centuries, the Imperial Roman army's defence strategy mutated from "forward defence" (or "preclusive defence") during the Principate era (30 BC-AD 284) to "defence-in-depth" in the fourth century. "Forward-" or "preclusive" defence aimed to neutralise external threats before they breached the Roman borders: the barbarian regions neighbouring the borders were envisaged as the theatres of operations. In contrast, "defence-in-depth" would not attempt to prevent incursions into Roman territory, but aimed to neutralise them on Roman soil - in effect turning border provinces into combat zones.
I don’t assume that any Biblical translation is perfect.
It’s not important whether or not the stories of the Bible literally happened. Personally, I’m not concerned either way.
Errors may have crept into the “original” Greek and Hebrew.
The correct way to read the Bible isn’t to look at it and understand it, but to look at the world through it.
I don’t look at the Bible as a perfect crystalline structure, but as a lens that may be scratched — or worse, cracked. It’s surprising how badly a lens can be cracked and still deliver clear photographs. If I get lost in the details, I might lose sight of the big picture.
I don’t ask myself if the Bible is true, but rather, if there’s superbly insightful truth in it. This focuses my reading and attention to search for the core nuggets of the faith.
Proceed from the axiomatic center
A lot of people look for evidence of Christianity (as I did through prophesy, science, etc), but I’m unconvinced this can be done. Instead, I’m asking what happens if I take the religion seriously. Can I use the primitives defined by the religion and simply reason through them the way I would reason through any other system?
This means I need to tread carefully. Axiomatic systems (dogmas, ideologies, etc) can have severe negative consequences — you can go crazy. Any belief system that generates contradictions is at risk of blowing itself up. I can believe in God and Jesus, but then what? Instead, I want to find a core I can trust and believe in, and work outward from there.
There has to be a connecting thread from Genesis to Christ. Natural questions that arise (e.g., about the unfairness of God) in the Old Testament should be resolved in the New Testament. Should the book of Enoch be included? If it fills a broken gap in the thread, then sure. Otherwise, I’m willing to exclude books that have been accepted into the canon.
I’m suspicious of including the book of Revelation. It’s too exciting, and it’s tempting to start the Biblical journey by trying to understand the end times. It’s also difficult to understand, and too easy to start coming to wild conclusions. However, if the book of Revelation builds on intermediate results (lemmas) earlier in scripture, then I don’t have a good way of evaluating it unless I’ve already found the core of the religion.
I read Christ’s teachings as if he was laying out a formal system that can be built upon (like a rock, or math). After all, this is what he claims. People believed him, and the religion has produced some beautiful cathedrals.
I’m looking for the big idea, or a small interconnected network of ideas that branch out, not a large set of atomic instructions and beliefs. Though the Bible is big, I look at most of it as exposition on the big ideas rather than looking at the whole thing as a flat gray work.
I put a lot of weight on what Jesus said, and less weight on anything else in the New Testament. I try to read the Epistles as interpretations and extrapolations from what Jesus taught.
The moral contents of the Epistles should be derivable from Christ’s teachings.
In general, if I can’t build on top of Christianity the way I can build on top of math, then I’m either misunderstanding something, or the religion is off. If I can’t take the religion infinitely seriously (as I take math), then I can’t rely on it as the foundation.
I have a few candidates for where the core might be:
Adam and Eve, and maybe Genesis as a whole?
Assume the understandability of scripture
I assume the primary teachings are understandable to average people. I don’t buy the esoteric hidden meaning style of thinking (though it’s tempting). If there’s something hidden, it would be hidden in the way advanced math is only accessible to elites. However, the fundamentals (addition, subtraction, etc) should be readily accessible.
I’m not immune to the social pressure surrounding biblical beliefs. If something doesn’t make sense, I try not to deny my inner conviction (or settle to accept a weak argument). I ask myself if I’m truly convinced, or if I’m going along to get along.
I don’t focus on individual verses. If a verse is unclear, I let it be unclear. I try not to decide on a meaning prematurely.
I don’t put any pre-conceived ideas on God. Is God omnipotent? Who knows? I assume the Bible should define God. I assume that’s part of what it’s trying to do.
I try to avoid prematurely accepting any doctrine. For example, do I believe in the Trinity? I hardly know what it means to believe in the trinity, so how can I say either way? I should be able to claim ignorance. And even if I did believe in it, so what?
Conclusion
Mixing the scientific and the religious is often a recipe for trouble. You can quickly find yourself in the world of UFOs, aliens, Creationism, etc. Many people think the two should stay in their own non-overlapping magisteria.
I propose we dig for the core, assume this core is a formal system, and extrapolate from it. If useful ideas can be derived, then we’re on the right track. If not, we either try harder or give up. I don’t know how we’d know one way or the other.
There’s reason to believe this would be fruitful. Some examples of valuable ideas derived from Christianity:
Rene Girard’s mimetic desire, and Peter Thiel’s motto to never compete.
Universities finding their origin in Medieval Christian tradition.
Typology, and Jungian archetypes.
So it’s not like there’s nothing left to salvage. One way to think of the Bible is that it’s presents itself as kind of cinematic universe. The stories are not meant to be merely stories. No, they serve as building blocks on top of which we can all write the stories of our own lives.