{"id":505,"date":"2017-09-02T15:08:10","date_gmt":"2017-09-02T11:08:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.info\/km\/?p=505"},"modified":"2018-12-19T16:03:51","modified_gmt":"2018-12-19T12:03:51","slug":"an-orthodox-approach-to-hermeneutics-fr-dr-k-m-george","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/archives\/505","title":{"rendered":"An Orthodox Approach to Hermeneutics \/ Fr. Dr. K. M. George"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"fr_dr_k_m_george\"<\/a><\/p>\n

An Orthodox Approach to Hermeneutics \/ Fr. Dr. K. M. George<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

An Orthodox Approach to Hermeneutics<\/strong> \r\n\r\nDr. K. M. GEORGE, Orthodox Seminary \r\n\r\n\r\nA few initial remarks seem to be necessary: \r\n\r\n1. In the theological tradition of the Eastern Churches, the \r\nproblem of interpretation and understanding has always been an \r\nimportant one. But nowhere in the history of these Churches, one \r\nfinds any attempt to turn the hermeneutical process into a specialized \r\nacademically hermetic activity. Hermeneia is always directed to the \r\noikodome of the Church as St. Paul reminds us. (1 Cor. 14: 5). \r\n\r\n2. Biblical hermeneutics is not treated in isolation from the \r\ngeneral theological hermeneutical approach of the Church. In other \r\nwords, the question \u2018how do you understand the Bible today\u2019 is \r\nnecessarily related to such questions as how do you understand God, \r\nthe Church, the liturgy or the humanity. \r\n\r\n3. While the Church recognizes the special character of the \r\nhermeneutic of written texts, it thinks that a hermeneutic of the non- \r\nverbal and the non-conceptual envelopes and permeates the former \r\nin such a way that a rigid distinction between them is often difficult \r\nto maintain. \r\n\r\nGenerally speaking a hermeneutical problem is constituted by \r\nthe temporal and cultural distance of the interpreter from the text \r\nor the event to be interpreted. The Church had to confront the \r\nproblem in the very early centuries when the Gospel passed from its \r\nSemitic cultural matrix to meet the Hellenistic culture and learning. \r\nWe know how in this encounter, the Greek idea of Logos and several \r\nPlatonic and Neoplatonic concepts became important hermeneutical \r\ncategories for generations of Christian theologians both Orthodox \r\nand heterodox. The problem of interpretation was raised all the \r\nmore sharply when the question of Orthodoxy and heresy came up \r\nwithin the Church. Ingenious teachers began to interpret the Bible \r\nand the Christian doctrines with the assistance of pure logic, impressive \r\ndialectic and with other techniques of sophistry and rhetoric only to \r\nfind themselves accused of deviating from the authentic faith of the \r\nChurch. The Church then had to evolve certain criteria, though not \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n16 \r\n\r\n\r\nformal, in order to test and guide the process of interpretation. The \r\nHermeneutical problem, therefore, is nothing new to the Church. \r\nIt had to grapple with some of the basic issues in modern hermeneutics \r\nlong before the German scholars started to discuss it in a wissenscha- \r\nftliche manner and the others followed suit, in a slavish way. \r\n\r\nThe hermeneutical approach of the Eastern Tradition was pro- \r\nfoundly influenced by the great controversy between Eunomius, the \r\nradical Arian theologian and three Cappadocians (Basil, Gregory \r\nNazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa) in the latter half of the 4th century. \r\nThe debate centred round two key issues: \r\n\r\n1. The question of divine incomprehensibility. \r\n\r\n2. The role of language in expressing truth. \r\n\r\nBoth the questions had to deal with the problem of interpretation and \r\nunderstanding. Eunomius, armed with subtle Aristotelian logic, \r\ndialectic and the Holy Scriptures, was trying to accommodate \r\nChristian theology to a certain brand of Neoplatonic system. He \r\nadvanced the thesis that the divine essence (ousia), the real nature of \r\nGod is perfectly comprehensible to the human mind. To Basil and \r\nhis friends who rejected the thesis, the Eunomians cited Scripture \r\nand argued. Quoting for example, Jesus\u2019 words to the Samaritan \r\nwoman \u201cyou worship what you do not know; we worship what we \r\nknow\u201d (Jn. 4: 22), they squarely put the question to Basil: \u201cDo you \r\nworship the God you know or the God you do not know?\u201d 1 To \r\nthe Eunomians it appeared that if one followed the Word of God in \r\na strictly logical way, one would have to agree with their original \r\nassumption that the essential nature of God is perfectly comprehen- \r\nsible to the human mind. They would argue it in a somewhat syllo- \r\ngistic way: \r\n\r\n\r\nScripture says : we worship what we know \r\nScripture is revealed truth \r\nTherefore we know what God is. \r\n\r\nThose who rejected this \u201cScriptural truth\u201d and affirmed the divine \r\nincomprehensibility are impious agnostics. Their confession of \r\nignorance is atheistic in effect. 2 \r\n\r\nThe principle of the absolute intelligibility of divine nature which \r\nthe Eunomians used as a hermeneutical principle in scriptural inter- \r\npretation and consequently applied to the Trinitarian doctrine is \r\n\r\n\r\n1 Basil of Caesara, Epist CCXXXIV. 1, 3. \r\n\r\n2 See Gregory Nazianzen, Orat, XXVIII 5, Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium \r\nIII P. G. 45. 602 \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n17 \r\n\r\n\r\nbrought in from philosophical sources outside the tradition of the \r\nChurch . 3 Eunomius had accepted the division of all reality into the \r\ncreator who is agennetos (unbegotten) and the creation which is the \r\ngennema (that which came to be or the begotten). In Trinitarian \r\ndoctrine, it meant that the Father alone is agennetos, unique and \r\nabsolutely simple, while the Son and the Holy Spirit belonged to \r\nthe gennema along with the rest of creation. \r\n\r\nNow, Eunomius claimed that agennetos is the proper name of \r\nGod. By rational analysis of the name, we can get back to the \r\nousia of God. Every object has its name given by God and the name \r\nreveals the reality of the object. Giving of names (onomaton thesis) \r\nbelongs to God alone. Behind this assertion, there was a classical \r\ndebate between the Platonists and the Aristotelians about the origin \r\nof language. The former argued that words and names are kata \r\nphusin, i. e. given to objects supernaturally and they therefore reveal \r\nreality. The latter held that words and names are kata thesin, i. e. \r\ngiven to objects by convention, by the human mind as arbitrary \r\nsymbols. Language is a purely human creation. It is valid but it \r\nbears the mark of human limitation. \r\n\r\nEunomius represented the former in a radical way and held that \r\nthe name unbegotten is a revealed name and therefore it gives us the \r\nessential knowledge of the Being of God. This name existed before \r\nall excercise of human intelligence. The position of Eunomius means \r\nthat all verbal statements about God based on agennetos contain the \r\ntruth of his essential nature. \r\n\r\nThe Cappadocians attacked vehementally the position of Eunomius. \r\nThey held that the human mind\u2019s inability to comprehend the ousia \r\nof God is not a moral defect, but a constitutive character of created \r\nbeings vis-a-vis the infinity of God\u2019s nature. Following the famous \r\nwords of Clement of Alexandria \u201cwe know that God is not what he \r\nis,\u201d Gregory Nazianzen told Eunomius: \u201cIt is one thing to be \r\npersuaded of the existence (to einai) of a thing and quite another to \r\nknow (eidenai) what it is .\u201d 4 5 Human comprehension is an attempt \r\nto circumscribe its object, and God can never be objectified thus: \r\n\r\n\u201cGod like some great sea of Being limitless and unbounded, \r\ntranscending all conceptions of time and nature, only adumbrated \r\nby the mind, and that very dimly and scantily, not by his essentials \r\nbut by his environment.\u201d 6 ! \r\n\r\n\r\n3 See J. Danielou, \u201cEunome l\u2019arien et l\u2019exegese neoplatonicienne de Cratyle\u201d \r\nin Revue des Etudes Grecs 69 (1956) 412-423. \r\n\r\n4 Orat. XXVIII. 5. \r\n\r\n5 Orat, XLV. 3. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n18 \r\n\r\n\r\nEven if we persist in our attempt to understand the divine \r\nnature, \u201call that we can comprehend is the infinity (\u00ab apeiria ) of God.\u201d 6 \r\n\r\nThe Cappadocians argued against Eunomius that language is \r\na creation of the human mind ( epinoia ). Human epinoia does not \r\npossess any innate idea of God\u2019s essential nature. 7 Language which \r\nthe epinoia invented is a very useful instrument, but is an insufficient \r\ntool to understand God. Not only language but no other mode of \r\nunderstanding can penetrate or comprehend the divine apeiria . At \r\nthis level if any language is possible at all, it turns negative and proceeds \r\nby negation. \r\n\r\nThe debate with Eunomius made clear to the Church among \r\nother things that: (1) linguistic category is not the only category nor \r\na sufficient one for interpretation and understanding; (2) human \r\nmind and language are incapable of fully understanding and articu- \r\nlating not only transcendent realities, but also matters in our sensible \r\nworld; (3) since the infinity of God and his ultimate incomprehensi- \r\nbility are basic to the theological thinking of the Church, interpre- \r\ntation and understanding belong to an unceasing, dynamic process; \r\n(4) biblical interpretation requires more than the principle of reason. \r\nThe exclusive alliance of logic and Scripture had proved fatal to the \r\nChristian faith. \r\n\r\nWhat then, are some of the categories and principles of inter- \r\npretation emphasized by the Orthodox tradition as necessary for a \r\nright understanding? The following are no formal criteria laid down \r\nby any council or declared ex cathedra by any Patriarch, but guide- \r\nlines deeply embedded in the general consensus of the Church. \r\n\r\n1. Living Community: the Hermeneutical Matrix \r\n\r\nThe hermeneutical problem consitituted by temporal and cultural \r\ndistance between the interpreter and the text or event to be interpreted \r\nis here approached from the vantage point of the living community. The \r\nChurch speaks only of a single living community, irrespective of culture \r\nand chronology, when it refers to its own life and identity. That \r\nmeans an event of the first century can be present to the 20th century \r\nthrough the organic mediation of the living community held together \r\nby unbroken gathering and celebration. Further no event or text \r\nwithin this community can be totally objectified by one who stands \r\n\r\n\r\n6 Ibid. E. Muhlenberg has demonstrated the significant relationship between \r\nthe concepts of infinity and incomprehensibility in Gregory of Nyssa\u2019s thought. \r\nDie Unendlichkeit Gottes bei Gregor von Nyssa, Goettingen, 1966. \r\n\r\n7 For a discussion of Gregory of Nyssa\u2019s brilliant debate with Eunomius and its \r\ntheological significance see Paulos Gregorios, The Cosmic Man Delhi 1980. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n\r\nwithin it, so as to constitute a real distance between them. As a \r\nmember of the Church my approach to a biblical text of the first \r\ncentury is bound to be different from my approach to a Roman \r\nlegal text of the same period. 1 need two different sets of hermeneutical \r\nprinciples here, because in the case of the biblical text, it is already \r\npart of my inheritance through the mediation of the community, \r\nwhile the Roman legal text does not belong to my dynamic inheritance. \r\nIn the former I have inherited a sense, while in the latter, the text \r\nremains cold, objective and dead. Therefore, even if an outsider \r\nwants to understand really the biblical text, he should first \u201center into \r\nthe inheritance\u201d of the community. Otherwise the Roman text \r\nand the biblical text remain the same for him and are interpreted \r\nusing the same principles. Here one has to disagree completely with \r\nBultmann\u2019s classical statement that the \u201cinterpretation of biblical \r\nwritings is not subject to conditions different from those applying to \r\nall other kinds of literature.\u201d \r\n\r\nInterpretation ( henneneia ) in the Church, as I have suggested at \r\nthe beginning, is not for a disinterested, objective understanding of \r\nthe text, but for the oikodome of the community. These are comple- \r\nmentary processes. Interpretation builds up; the built up community \r\ninterprets. \r\n\r\n\r\n2. Event, the Hermeneutical Source of the text \r\n\r\nIn the Eastern tradition, the event has priority over the text. \r\nThe event of the death and resurrection of Christ is crucial. The \r\nApostolic experience of this event is being transmitted in the Church \r\nin both written and non-written modes. Therefore in the Orthodox \r\nperspective, a hermeneutic of the written word must always be inte- \r\ngrally associated with an experimental appropriation of the Word \r\nincarnate, crucified, and risen. Since participation in the experience \r\nof this event is possible by entering into the life of the living community, \r\nthe interpretation of the written Word must also take place in the \r\ncontext of this experience in the community. The Church cannot \r\nreduce the Christ event into \u201ca linguistic event\u201d or an \u201cacoustical \r\nevent\u201d 8 . The effort of Eunomius in the 4th cent, was precisely the \r\nsame \u2014 to reduce Trinity and Incarnation to linguistic \u201ctechnology.\u201d 9 \r\n\r\n\r\n8 Cf. Carl E. Braaten, History and Hermeneutics, New Directions in Theology \r\nVol: II, 1966, pp. 138-139. \r\n\r\n9 The Cappadocians called the Eunomians, technologists, because of their \r\nunbridled application of Aristotelian dialectic and sophistical techniques to \r\nChristian doctrine. See Gregory Nazianzen Orat. XXVII. 2; Basil, Epist, \r\nXC. 2, Homil. XVI 4; Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunom. I (Jaeger, t. 1, p. 38). \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n20 \r\n\r\n\r\n3. Tradition: a Hermeneutical Category: \r\n\r\nThe modern German philosophical discussion has taken up \r\n\u2018tradition\u2019 as a significant hermeneutical category, though the word \r\nsmacks unevangelical reactionary archaism in many protestant \r\n\u2018traditions.\u2019 It has now become a common place in all human \r\nactivities whether of science or art or religion. There are unquestion- \r\nable traditions in objective and exact sciences. The most virulent \r\nopponents of tradition gradually constitute a dogmatic tradition of \r\nopposing tradition. The human community is sustained by traditions. \r\n\r\nGadamer would put it thus, referring to the subjective assimila- \r\ntion of tradition and to the inevitable pre-understanding (prejudice) \r\nprovided by it: \u201cWe stand always within traditions and this is no \r\nobjectifying process, i. e. we do not conceive of what the tradition \r\nsays as something other, something alien. On the contrary, it is \r\nalways part of us, a model and an exemplar, a self-recognition, which \r\nour later historical judgment would hardly see as a kind of knowledge \r\nof tradition.\u201d 10 \r\n\r\nFor the living community of the Church, tradition represents its \r\nunbroken life. Without sharing fundamental prejudices with the \r\ntradition one cannot rightly interpret the Christ event or its biblical \r\ntestimony 11 . Instead of speaking about \u2018the fusion of two horizons\u2019 \r\nwe will have to speak here about a single horizon which the tradition \r\nprovides. It does not mean that all hermeneutical problem ceases \r\nwhen we speak about tradition as a single horizon. Tradition itself \r\nmoves through a sifting and filtering process. Tradition is not any \r\nimmutable original depositum, but a dynamic reality which interprets \r\nand is shaped by interpretation at the same time. The verbs tradere \r\n(to transmit = tradition) and traducere (to carry over to translate = \r\nInterpretation) are related. Tradition is not simple transmission, \r\nbut interpretation as well. \r\n\r\nContrary to popular understanding, tradition is not a collection \r\nof past events, texts and memories. It is that vital flow that meaning- \r\nfully relates the past to the present. It is not a simple memory, \r\nbut a creatively interpreted memory. The memory of exodus from \r\nthe slavery of Egypt was not a traditional memory for Israel. It was \r\na creative and liberating remembrance transmitted by tradition. In \r\na dynamic tradition, the event, the text and the interpreters are held \r\ntogether in a single horizon of \u201cexperiential consanguinity.\u201d 12 The \r\n\r\n\r\n10 Truth and Method: London, New York, 1976, p. 250. \r\n\r\n11 Ibid. p. 262. \r\n\r\n12 The expression is Bultmann\u2019s Cf. C. E. Braaten, Op. cit. p. 134. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n21 \r\n\r\n\r\ntradition as an interpretative process is open and oriented to future. \r\nThere is a danger of the formation of false traditions. When a \r\ntradition is unable to interpret the original Christ event in conformity \r\nto the Apostolic witness or when its interpretation is unconducive \r\nto the olkodome of the community, or when its interpretation is not \r\ncreatively future-oriented, it is a false tradition. A simple use of \r\nscripture alone to test its validity is considered insufficient. The \r\nOrthodox Churches have experienced the formation of false traditions \r\nin their historical life. It is the corporate mind of the Church aided \r\nby the Holy Spirit that finally sifts the true from the false tradition. \r\n\r\n4. Economy, a Hermeneutical principle \r\n\r\nThe word oikonomia comes from oikonomeo meaning to admini- \r\nster, to rule (one\u2019s home), to accommodate. \u2018Economy\u2019 has been \r\nused as a synonym of the Incarnation of Christ, and also for the \r\nprovidential plan of God to administer the world . 13 In the incar- \r\nnation the Son of God is accommodating himself to our world of senses \r\nin order to realize God\u2019s supreme providential plan of salvation. In \r\nChrist the invisible and the incomprehensible has become visible and \r\ncomprehensible as part of God\u2019s \u2018home rule.\u2019 Economy is a partial \r\ncompensation for man\u2019s inability to know the essential nature of \r\nGod. But Christ himself had many limitations in his incarnate \r\nnature. The subordinationist Arians had argued their point from \r\nthe Scripture by pointing out that Christ was in the form of a servant, \r\nthat he was ignorant of God\u2019s total plans, that he had no will of his \r\nown etc . 14 The patristic answer was that Christ was a kenotic figure \r\nwho had accepted all the limitations of sense-bound human beings \r\nand who in his earthly life was hiding rather than revealing the \r\nessential nature of God which would have been too unbearable \r\nto humans in their earthly condition . 16 This hiding was soterio- \r\nlogical in nature. \r\n\r\nNow this implies some hermeneutical principles. All human \r\nlanguage (word) about God necessarily bears an economic limitation \r\nas Word incarnate limited himself for our sake. All human inter- \r\npretation and understanding are relative with respect to the divine \r\nnature. Biblical interpretation also must take into account God\u2019s \r\nincomprehensible transcendent nature and his own economic self- \r\nlimitation in Christ- The incarnate word\u2019s self-limitation was for the \r\n\r\n\r\n13 For the various use of the term in Christian and Greek tradition, see \r\n\r\nK. Duchatelez, \u201cLa notion d\u2019economie et ses richesses theologiques\u201d in \r\nNouvelle Revue Theologique XCIL (1970) 267-292. \r\n\r\n14 See Gregory Nazianzen, Orat, XXX. 3. 15, 10 etc., \r\n\r\n1 5 Cf. Gregory\u2019s description of the vision of Moses on Mount Sinai as a negation \r\nof the real vision with a soteriological motif. Orat. XXVIII. 3, also see Orat. \r\nXXX. 6. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n22 \r\n\r\n\r\nsalvation of the world. The Church\u2019s preaching of the Word must \r\nbring itsel fdown to the existential condition of human beings, and \r\ninspite of its limitations, must be oriented towards their salvific \r\ntransformation. Interpretation and understanding within the Church \r\nare not primarily meant for deeper epistemological and philosophical \r\nintelligibility, but aimed at the salvation of the world. \r\n\r\n5. Some Hermeneutical Relationships: \r\n\r\n(a) Praxis-Theoria : In the patristic tradition theoria is the \r\nhighest form of contemplation and knowledge, the immediate ex- \r\nperience of God. But the way to it is through praxis, rigorous self- \r\npurification, self-discipline and through practice of Christian virtues. \r\nIn other words, the Church insisted on the constitutive significance \r\nof the ethical-practical for the cognitive-theoretical 16 . Ethical \r\nactivity is the mode of right understanding. Theological interpre- \r\ntation is simply vain talk if it is not sustained by praxis. (Karl Marx \r\nhad criticised the separation of theory and practice as characteristic \r\nof bourgeois philosophy. Marxism also considers practical activity \r\nas the right mode of understanding). \r\n\r\n(b) Word and word: The human word (language) is always \r\nvalidated on the basis of its relationship with the eternal divine Word \r\n(Logos). The patristic equation is Logos-logikos-logos where the \r\nfirst Logos is God\u2019s reason or word, the logikos is the rational human \r\nbeing, and the last logos is the human word or language l7 . Unless \r\nthis three-fold relationship is maintained human language loses its \r\nvalue and becomes vain talk. In the Cartesian system cogito ergo \r\nsum , being (sum) is derived from the human rationality (cogito). In \r\nthe above understanding, it is the inverse process; human rationality \r\n(logos) is derived from the divine being (Logos). \r\n\r\n(c) Speech and Silence: Silence is a hermeneutical category in \r\nthe Eastern tradition. An authentic vision of reality creates aphasia. \r\nOrdinary language ceases to be operative at higher levels of under- \r\nstanding. A right dialectic between speech and silence is enormously \r\nfruitful in interpretation and understanding. \u201cSilence is a gift from \r\nGod \u201d 18 to be offered back to him. The apophatic silence is creative \r\nof meaning. Buddha\u2019s flower sermon or Sankara\u2019s neti neti tends to \r\nthis apophatic silence. \r\n\r\n\r\n16 For the close connection between knowledge and ethics in the patristic tradition, \r\nsee. T. Paul Varghese, The Freedom of Man Westminister, 1972, p. 67ff. \r\nThe author argues that the cultic, the cognitive and the creatively ethical form \r\na single entity. \r\n\r\n17 Clement of Alexandria Protrept. 10; Origen, Comment in Joan 1 : 42. Gregory \r\nNazianzen, Orat. XLV, 2; Orat. XLI. 1. \r\n\r\n18 Nazianzen, Orat. XXXI T. 14. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n23 \r\n\r\n\r\n6. Symbol and Celebration: a Hermeneutical Complement \r\n\r\nFrancis Bacon, a famous modern European painter was exhi- \r\nbiting some of his more abstract paintings in a Paris gallery in 1977. \r\nSince the critics spoke highly about the artist, a French television \r\njournalist came to see Bacon for a directly televised interview. One \r\nof the first questions the journalist asked was: \u201cMr. Bacon, could \r\nyou explain some of the reasons why you paint?\u201d The artist, without \r\neven looking at the interlocutor, said in a low voice: \u201cIf I could \r\nexplain that I don\u2019t need to paint at all.\u201d Now he would not respond \r\nto other questions and the interview was cut short. \r\n\r\nThe inexpressible and the incomprehensible can be represented \r\nthrough symbolic forms and liturgical celebration. God who has \r\nno name can be praised in a thousand names. 19 For the Eastern \r\nChristian tradition, liturgy is the context par excellence for interpre- \r\ntation and understanding. Remembrance of the past event and \r\nanticipation of the future are brought together in the present cele- \r\nbration in the Eucharistic liturgy. My understanding of the gospel \r\nnarrative of the resurrection of Christ within the liturgical experience \r\nis different from my apprehension of the same text in the academy. \r\nIn the former I share the experiential interpretation given to me by \r\nthe living community and its tradition bridging the hermeneutical \r\ngap between me and the original event. In the latter, the academic \r\ntradition I share may not necessarily possess the experiential di- \r\nmension transmitted through liturgical celebration. It is perhaps \r\nthis fact that prompted a Lutheran professor like Carl Braaten to \r\nsay: \u201cThe act of understanding occurs as a miracle in the context of \r\nworship.\u201d 20 \r\n\r\nWe are naturally very much concerned with a hermeneutic of \r\nthe written text. But what about the interpretation and understand- \r\ning of other forms of human activity like music, painting or dance? \r\nHistorians of art like Roger Garaudy (formerly a leading French \r\nMarxist theoretician, now converted to Christian faith) argues for the \r\nnon-conceptual mode of understanding as more significant than the \r\nconceptual and the verbal. Criticizing the Western tradition, he says \r\nthat the west is used, since Socrates, to underestimate everything that \r\nescapes our intellectual network. 21 Qualifying art as a hermeneutical \r\nshort cut, he deplores the disappearance of liturgical dance from the \r\nWestern tradition. In Greek tragedies, the choir used to sing and \r\ndance to communicate that which verbal dialogue could not commu- \r\nnicate. Referring to the movements in dance Garaudy says there is \r\na metakinesis , a direct transmission of the movements of the dancer \r\n\r\n\r\n19 See the Hymnus ad Deum attributed to Gregory Nazianzen, Carmina 1.1.29. \r\n\r\n20 C. E. Braaten, Op. Cit. p. 159. \r\n\r\n21 R. Garaudy, Danser sa vie, Paris, 1973. p. 22. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n24 \r\n\r\n\r\nto the spectator, both being tuned to a cosmic resonance. 22 It is \r\nan unmediated experience of the movement of being, a non-verbal \r\nhermeneutical happening. Using gestures, colours, odours, taste and \r\ntouch in a deeply symbolical way, the liturgy is a hermeneutical alter- \r\nnative to the limitations of conceptual and verbal understanding. \r\n\r\nThe paronymy between dogma and doxa (praise, glory) is very \r\nmuch emphasised in the Orthodox tradition. Dogma had been \r\ninterpreted in its Western medieval sense, as a \u2018doctrinal law\u2019 \r\n( Lehrgesetz ) by Harnack in his antidogmatic polemic. Barth \r\nunderstood it as the creeds and confession of the Church and disting- \r\nuished the Word of God, the dogma and the Church. 23 In the \r\nEastern tradition creeds and confession have no value isolated from \r\ndoxa, the liturgical celebration. They are rendered meaningful \r\nonly when they are incorporated as part of the doxological act of the \r\nChurch. A credal statement or a conciliar decree does not become \r\ndogma by itself. \r\n\r\n7. Holy Spirit, the Hermeneutical Guide: \r\n\r\nTheological hermeneutics is characterized by trust in the guidance \r\nand inspiration of the Holy Spirit. \u201cThe Spirit of truth\u201d is taken \r\nin all seriousness as the source and pledge of right knowledge. The \r\nChurch believes that discursive reasoning alone will not yield truth. \r\nYou need the creator Spirit to lead you to new and higher levels of \r\nunderstanding. An authentic theological interpretation is, in the words \r\nof Gregory the Theologian (4th cent.), \u201coffering wings to the \r\nSpirit.\u201d 24 The transparent openness and the etherial freedom in \r\ninterpretation and understanding come when we are afloat with the \r\ncreative wings of the Spirit. Referring to the recourse to the Spirit \r\nas the right method of the knowledge and speech of God, the \r\nTheologian says: \r\n\r\nI opened my mouth and drew in the Spirit, and 1 gave myself \r\nand my all to the Spirit, my action and speech, my inaction and \r\nsilence; only let Him hold me and guide me and move both hand \r\nand mind and tongue .... I am an instrument of God, a \r\nrational instrument ( organon logikon ), an instrument tuned \r\nand struck by that skillful artist, the Spirit. 25 \r\n\r\nThis in-depth experience of the Spirit has become hermeneutically \r\nnormative for the Church. The Holy Spirit unceasingly liberates the \r\nChristian faith and understanding from becoming dead doctrine or \r\nsterile* logic, and grants the gift of interpretation to the inspired \r\ninterpreter. \r\n\r\n\r\n22 Ibid . p. 23. \r\n\r\n23 Church Dogmatics Vol: I, Part I, tr. G. T. Thomas, 1936, p. 308. \r\n\r\n24 Orat. XII. 5. \r\n\r\n25 Orat. XII. 1.<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
An Orthodox Approach to Hermeneutics \/ Fr. Dr. K. M. George An Orthodox Approach to Hermeneutics Dr. K. M. GEORGE, Orthodox Seminary A few initial remarks seem to be necessary: … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":255,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,9,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-english-articles","category-hermeneutics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/505","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=505"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/505\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":717,"href":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/505\/revisions\/717"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/255"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fatherkmgeorge.in\/km\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}